Why a year after the Holocaust, my parents are happy in DP camp photos

Survivors were largely overlooked by post-war officials following the genocide. Unable to go to North America or Israel, Jews spent a few carefree years in idyllic settings

By BERNARD DICHEK January 27, 2021

After my parents passed away, I began to look through a pile of photos showing them when they were refugees in Germany after the Holocaust. The photos are puzzling: My parents’ families have been murdered in Poland by the Germans, dark clouds hang over the future, and yet they look like they are on vacation. They are smiling, lounging in bathing suits, and drinking beer in cafes.

Together with other descendants of survivors, I have been trying to figure out what was going on during this period our parents seldom mentioned.

Between 1946 and 1949 about 250,000 survivors took refuge in American-occupied Germany. Fleeing anti-Semitism and Communism, they hoped the Displaced Persons (DP) camps set up by the American Army would serve as a gateway to the emerging Jewish state or to the West.

As the British blocked their entry to the nascent Jewish homeland and the United States, Canada and other countries refused to let them in, a long waiting period ensued. Bolstered by food and clothing from American Jewish relief organizations, the DPs soon launched a huge baby boom.

Seven decades later, these “babies” are connecting with one another through Facebook groups and reunions — even though most of them last saw each other while lying in a baby carriage.

The Bad Reichenhall DP camp, circa 1947. (Courtesy of Leah Rochelle Ilutowicz Zylbercwajg)

One thing many of us have in common, oddly enough, is an inheritance of large numbers photos from the DP era, left behind by our parents, whose stories about the Holocaust tended to overshadow reminiscences of the period that followed.

In the last few years the children of Jewish DPs who lived in Bad Reichenhall, Feldafing, Eichstatt, Foehrenwald, St. Ottilien and other Bavarian towns have either met up in Germany or via the internet in order to piece together what life was like during that time. Many of the photos handed down to other descendants convey the same carefree atmosphere that mine do. At the St. Ottilien meeting one participant even quoted his parents as describing those days as the happiest of their lives.

Regina and Joseph Dichek swimming at the Bad Reichenhall, Germany, displaced persons camp after the Holocaust. (Courtesy Bernard Dichek)

“They were young people who now had a secure place to stay,” said Burt Rochelson, an American physician whose father reached St. Ottilien along with a group of Lithuanian Jews who escaped from a bombed train. “They didn’t dwell on the past. They were human. They finally had the opportunity to have a good time and dammit if they weren’t going to do it.”

The desire to not look back was a sentiment that Abe Mazliach recalls his father expressing about his time at Feldafing. “When my father was on his way to Feldafing, an American army officer told him to try to forget the past and start a new life,” says Mazliach. “That’s what Feldafing became for him and that’s why you can see many happy moments in those photos.”

Mazliach, an American computer expert, notes that one of the exciting aspects of sharing photos has been discovering his parents in photos provided by other descendants. “Years after he passed away I suddenly saw my father pictured in a music band at Feldafing with fellow Greek survivors from Thessaloniki,” he says.

Newlyweds Lola and Leon Mazliach, sitting in the center. (Courtesy Abe Mazliach)

As numerous marriages and childbirths took place, many photos document those events. Indeed one of the few photos I remember my parents displaying shows them proudly holding in their arms my newly-born sister Dina.

Yet it is the anguish associated with these joyous moments, that were the moments most often recalled in later years.

Regina and Joseph Dichek with their baby daughter Dina. (Courtesy Bernard Dichek)

“In almost every story I heard about a DP wedding, someone would say how they remembered a sad moment when they realized their mother and father weren’t there,” says Atina Grossmann, a historian who notes that it may have been awkward for the survivors to speak about that period later on.

“It was an ambivalent time for them. They were able to jump into a lake and swim in the perversely beautiful German landscape. It was blood-soaked earth, but it was defeated earth,” she says.

Grossmann makes a distinction between the type of photos that appear in public archives and the private photos that the survivors had taken of themselves. She explains that the former, which are the ones most often used to teach the history of the DP era were usually taken by fundraising organizations such as the American Jewish Joint Development Committee.

Historian Atina Grossmann. (Bernard Dichek)

“The JDC wanted to show surviving Jews as hardworking in workshops as auto mechanics or sewing or learning agriculture. They didn’t want to show young couples flirting in the mountains,” Grossmann says.

She hypothesizes that photos like those of my parents were likely intended as mementos, though they may have had another purpose. “They may have been trying to send a message to distant relatives that they were young and strong and not traumatized — even if they were,” Grossmann says.

In the case of my parents, the photos were sent to relatives in Toronto and New York who were trying to arrange their immigration to Canada or the United States.

Letters accompanying those photos sent by my father make it clear that he and my mother did not want to be seen as a burden. The number of times his letters repeat that claim lead me to believe that those relatives may have required some convincing.

Regina (center) and Joseph Dichek (at right), with the Bad Reichenhall displaced persons camp in the background, Germany, circa 1946-1949. The clothing may not have fit well, but it was well-made and clean, and in most photos Regina and Joseph Dichek are seen wearing different outfits, thanks to the generous donations of the JDC and other relief organizations. (Courtesy Bernard Dichek)

“It may have been easier for North American Jews to donate money than to welcome the survivors into their homes,” suggests Israeli historian Tom Segev when I asked him if the North American Jewish community may have echoed the negative attitude towards the survivors among Israel’s pre-state leaders that Segev has written extensively about.

“The Jewish Agency leaders, starting with [David] Ben-Gurion, were afraid of what the survivors were like. They were suspicious of how they had managed to survive,” says Segev, who noted in his book “The Seventh Million” that an envoy sent to the DP camps claimed that the arrival of the survivors would turn the Jewish state into “one big madhouse.”

“Many people simply didn’t want to live in a building with people who had concentration camp numbers on their arms,” adds Segev.

Regardless of whatever feelings the pre-state leaders may have had, Segev emphasizes, the policy they put into place the day Israel became independent was very clear. “As of May 15, 1948, Israel became the only country on earth that was willing to accept all of the survivors, regardless of their condition,” Segev says.

I continued to try to understand why the DP period was often neglected while on a trip to Germany, where I visited the places my parents stayed in Bad Reichenhall. I soon discovered that the Jewish DPs were not the only ones who seldom spoke about that era.

More than 400 Jewish DPs gave birth at the St. Ottilien Monastery hospital in the late 1940s. The monastery also provided housing for many DPs. A conference attended by more than 20 babies born there took place in June 2018. (Bernard Dichek)

As Grossmann points out in her book “Jews, Germans and Allies,” the only jobs available for many Germans was working in the DP camps, where the tasks were often quite menial. I could not help but notice a great irony of history: Only a few years after German leaders had described the Jews as vermin, many Germans found themselves washing the clothes of Jews and scrubbing their toilets.

Despite the shame many Germans may have felt about those days, some of their descendants have found it important to reflect on that period. Last May the town of Feldafing planned a memorial event to commemorate 75 years since the founding of the DP camp.

“It was difficult to get local support as people are very reluctant to talk about those days, but in the end we succeeded,” says Claudia Sack, a German sculptor whose father was employed in the Feldafing DP camp and who, along with the local mayor, helped plan the event. “Unfortunately, the coronavirus crisis made us cancel the event, which was to include a delegation of former Feldafing DPs from abroad.”

An exhibit of photos of babies born to Jewish displaced persons at St. Ottilien. (Bernard Dichek)

Finally, one other reason why the DP phenomenon has often faded into the background seems to be related to the relatively late stage in the lives of the survivors when the rest of the world started to take an interest in them.

During the 1950s and ’60s, those survivors who did talk about their experiences usually only found listening ears in their families or limited Jewish circles. This was certainly the case for my parents and their survivor friends in Canada, where they lived after immigrating there in 1949.

Regina and Joseph Dichek, at right, attend a wedding. (Courtesy Bernard Dichek)

Consequently, when the day of recognition for the survivors did come, it was the stories of the Holocaust that people wanted to hear. The days of the DP camps were seldom asked about, and the topsy-turvy events of a period when the tables were turned on victims and perpetrators didn’t fit the narrative of the genocide.

As I look once again at the photos, even after all the explanations and speculations, in some ways the truth of what those days were really like continues to elude me. Yet, as Mazliach pointed out: “Now that our parents are no longer here to tell their stories, it’s up to our generation to pass on whatever we can.”

Why did Trump received so many votes in the 2020 Election?

An analysis based on an article by Will Wilkinson, The New York Times, 11/27/2020 and other sources.

Trump won more votes than any incumbent president in American history despite his dereliction of responsibility at a time of a once-in-a-century health crisis and economic devastation. Why?

  1. The logic of partisan polarization.
    • When party affiliation becomes a central source of meaning, reality itself becomes contested and verifiable facts turn into hot-button controversies. Elections can’t render an authoritative verdict on the performance of incumbents when partisans in a closely divided electorate tell wildly inconsistent stories about one another and the world they share.
    • “Mr. Trump has a knack for leveraging the animosities of polarized partisanship to separate his supporters from sources of credible information and inflame them with vilifying lies”; Will Wilkinson, The New York Times, 11/27/2020. Trump tapped into a deep vein of cynicism and bitterness that has always existed in this country. Until the mind-bending spell of polarization breaks, everything that matters will be fiercely disputed and even the most egregious failures will continue to go unpunished.
    • People vote based on party not the person. Families have voted Republican for generations.
    • In complicated times when we know so little about so much, the politics of division give people a place to call home. This “home” has a lot of rooms where voters supported Trump for various reasons. Nonetheless, the address is always fear, anger, and dissatisfaction. This “home” makes people feel less vulnerable.
      • Recommended Solutions: Biden going on Fox once a week – even if hosts are determined to polarize. He can talk about what this is doing for the country. Calling on all elected officials to resist Trumpism in all its forms is required.
  2. The strength of the juiced pre-Covid-19 economy. Trump’s economy simply rode the coattails of the Obama economy. “Mr. Trump’s relentless campaign to goose the economy by cutting taxes, running up enormous deficits and debt, and pushing the Fed into not raising rates was working for millions of Americans. We tend to notice when we’re personally more prosperous than we were a few years before”; Will Wilkinson, The New York Times, 11/27/2020. His supporters see him as strong on the economy, tough on economic “rivals” like China, and a booster for the blue collar workers whose socio-economic status is threatened by globalization.
    1. Recommended Solutions: Biden will work to provide economic relief for all people. A comprehensive plan to end the COVID-19 crisis will bring jobs back. A White House that projects a coherent, scientifically informed response to the crisis could ease the politicisation of masks and social distancing.
  3. The success of Mr. Trump’s denialist, open-everything-up nonresponse to the pandemic.
    • “Trump abdicated responsibility, shifting the burden onto states and municipalities with busted budgets. He then waged a war of words against governors and mayors — especially Democrats — who refused to risk their citizens’ lives by allowing economic and social activity to resume.”; Will Wilkinson, The New York Times, 11/27/2020. As months passed and with no new relief coming from Washington, financially straitened Democratic states and cities had little choice but to ease restrictions on businesses just to keep the lights on.
    • That seemed to concede the economic wisdom of the more permissive approach in majority-Republican states and fed into Mr. Trump’s false narrative of victory over the virus and a triumphant return to normalcy. “The Republican message couldn’t have been clearer: Workers should be able to show up, clock in, earn a normal paycheck, pay the rent and feed their kids. Democrats were telling the same workers that we need to listen to science, reopening is premature, and the economy can’t be fully restored until we beat the virus. But how does that help when rent was due last week?”; Will Wilkinson, The New York Times, 11/27/2020.
    • Trump gets the underdog sympathy. Trump is seen as constantly attacked by the media.
    • Democrats allowed Republicans to define the contrast between the parties’ approaches to the pandemic in terms of freedom versus exhausting, indefinite shutdowns.
      • Recommended Solutions: Comprehensive plan to end the COVID-19 crisis to bring back the economy. Prioritize both to keep people working and getting the virus under control.
  4. Failure of Democrats to communicate clear messages forcefully.
    • Struggling workers and businesses never clearly heard exactly what they’d get if Democrats ran the show, and Democrats never came together to scream bloody murder that Republicans were refusing to give it to them. Democrats see themselves as on the right side of history and don’t use the tactics used by Republicans. They don’t constantly hammer the same message nor scream about it.
      • Recommended Solutions: Democrats should do what the GOP would never have missed: call it the “Trump Virus.” Every Democrat, every time they speak, every Day until the public and the media start using the term casually without thinking. Democrats need to underscore the depth of the Republican failure by forcefully communicating what other countries had done to successfully control the virus.
  5. Mistrust of the Democrats to protect them.
    1. They believe that immigrants threaten their jobs and security.
    2. They believe we should bring our troops home and let other nations fend for themselves.
    3. They want education but don’t want college to be free for everyone.
    4. They believe that welfare encourages people to stay home and that social security is bankrupt and won’t be there for them.
    5. They want a strong U.S. defense and the right to own guns. They believe there is a plot against religious freedom.
    6. They strongly oppose abortion and don’t want to pay for it. They believe that planned parenthood should be shut down.
    7. They hated Hillary and hate Obama even more.
    8. They believe they were sold out by the Democrats to corporate interests because of their support for the corrupt H-1B program.
      1. Recommended Solutions: Clear messaging. Education. Trust must be re-built. Vigilance is required. Engagement is required. Communication and coordination are required.
  6. Black Lives Matter Movement. BLM movement and defund the police motivated many voters to support Trump based on BLM rhetoric as well as the protests and looting. Too many middle-class Americans saw only the looting, burning, and rioting and decided it was safer to vote for Trump and did so. Trump has constantly misrepresented the Black Lives Matter movement as a violent, left-wing extremist attempt to destroy America.
    1. Recommended Solutions: Re-define the BLM movement. Don’t make Defund the Police a primary message.
  7. Right Wing News Networks and Social Media spreading falsehood. Over the past few months, at least once-a-week Fox will have the main headline something like “Chaos in X city.” The way the news is reported makes it sound like that whole city is burning and there are mass riots. Day in, day out, Fox highlights anything that makes it look like Democratic states are out of control or some outrageous thing is happening there. So people on the right truly believe that liberals are violent trouble-makers. Severely biased reporting and misinformation, spread widely by right-wing media, like Murdoch News Network, Fox, social media like Facebook and their local church’s, concerted efforts to demonize liberals and instill fear of “socialism.” This has been decades in the making. Regardless of left/right, most people are clueless about how the government functions, what is up to states, what’s up to the Fed, what the president can/can’t do, what’s going on at their local level, etc. That makes them susceptible to believing misinformation and wanting changes that are unconstitutional.
    1. Recommended Solutions: In order to get the message out Democrats are going to have to build an equal media world to counteract. Tune out Twitter, and focus on ‘Facebook Moms’. Build a Facebook Brain Trust. Fight misinformation, but pick your battles. Comprehensive civics education.
  8. Republicans are much better at marketing. The Republican strategy has been to convince people that middle-of-the-road is far-left socialism and anything left of solidly right-wing is communism and not to be trusted, including straight-shooting news sources with verifiable facts to back them up. The GOP has for decades since Lee Atwater worked to sow dissent and dissatisfaction among the electorate. Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz and their grasp of messaging and labeling Democrats and Democratic policies in negative terms. People have been conned by Republicans in a false narrative that the good old days of high wages for unskilled work is coming back. Mostly blue collar unskilled workers who have been left behind in a world where they can not earn a good living anymore by showing up at their union job. If you tell lies often enough, people will believe them. There no stronger emotions than fear and anger and these arguments are all based on someone who did this to you.
    1. Recommended Solutions: Democrats need to provide a simple, clear message and repeat it ad infinitum. Democrat politicians need to repeatedly explain to people what they want to accomplish, how it will serve people well, and why and how they are being thwarted by Republicans.
  9. Trump took advantage of being the sitting president. Trump used the trappings of the Presidency to campaign significantly more than in any candidate ever. No other President has made the Executive Branch and the Military such an integral part of their campaign. No other President has used the Presidential office to demonize the opposition or anyone who disagreed with him. Using the Presidential Office to repeatedly lie and misrepresents facts to aggrandize oneself obviously works.
    1. Recommended Solution: January 20, 2021.
  10. Democrats aren’t listening. DNC needs to listen to those in the “heartland” who are more in touch with what their less politically-inclined neighbors think. The Democrats’ emphasis on social issues was either irrelevant or offensive to rural people and farmers.
    • Recommended Solution: Democrats need to take some responsibility for a divided country.
  11. Trump the Reality TV Actor. Trump had been a celebrity since the eighties, his persona shaped by the best-selling book “The Art of the Deal.” “The Apprentice” mythologized him on a big scale, turning him into an icon of American success. Donald would not be President had it not been for that show. We are in a reality show. Politics has never been so spellbinding. “It’s vicariously watching someone act out and get away with it.” Many grew up loving Trump and liked his straightforward way of communicating. He represents a protest against the social forces of liberalism. It is about identity and feeling, having little to do with rational economic forces.
    • Recommended Solution: January 20, 2021.
  12. Racism and the Religious Right. Trump continues to give violent White Supremacist groups a pass, and even ally himself with them as he did with his “Stand back and stand by” instruction during the first debate. He has said “White people are the major victims of discrimination in the United State. The government is on everybody else’s side but theirs.” “Racial minorities have had it good for years in the United States because of all the government programs that help them get ahead of white people.” This allowed less educated whites to feel a sense of dignity and self worth – that being white does not mean needing to be constantly ashamed of who I am, people need to feel good about themselves. Their religion has conditioned them to believe in miracles. Some of them believe in miracles and they see Trump, but not the pandemic, as sent by god.
    1. Recommended Solution: If Democrats want this demographic to change, they have to view these people with compassion instead of contempt. Evangelical leaders like Beth Moore, the founder of Living Proof Ministries, a Bible-based women’s group from Houston, Texas and Karen Swallow Prior are starting to speak up against “Christian Trumpism”.

Chapter 1: Making the most of a Democratic trifecta: Four lessons from 2009

INDIVISIBLE: A Practical Guide for Fixing Our Democracy

https://indivisible.org/democracy-guide?akid=70164.1085402.g4-_RV&rd=1&t=7&utm_medium=button_20210108&utm_source=email

For the first time in more than a decade, Democrats will control both chambers of Congress and the White House—a “trifecta.” We know it’s close, a 50/50 split governed by a power sharing agreement that will have to be hammered out early on, but this still means we’ll have a real opportunity to pass and enact the type of bold legislation that we need to save our democracy and help our communities. With a trifecta, we can finally go on the offensive and push for the progressive changes we need to live in a thriving, functioning democracy. But let’s be clear: a trifecta offers an opportunity for transformative change—not a guarantee. We know, because we’ve been here before. In this chapter, we review four lessons we learned from our experience as Democratic staffers on Capitol Hill during the last Democratic trifecta.

What happened in the 111th Congress, the last time Democrats had a trifecta?

Barack Obama was (and is) an incredibly skilled leader and communicator who built an historic blue wave on his way to the White House in 2008. For the first time since 1993, Democrats returned to Washington, D.C. with a governing trifecta promising hope and change. As young congressional staffers, we were there to see some of those promises delivered; and, unfortunately, we were also there to witness in frustration so many that were not.

Democrats inherited a mess from the outgoing GOP president and a mandate from voters.

When Democrats took power in 2009, the economy was in freefall. There was a global recession brought on by Wall Street abuses, millions of Americans were losing their homes and their life savings, and millions more remained without health insurance. With control of the White House and large congressional majorities, Democrats kicked off the 111th Congress with an ambitious agenda, starting with the urgent need to deal with the economic crisis. Additionally, they promised to take action to reform the healthcare system, combat climate change, and pass immigration reform. The political opportunity was there, and expectations were high.

Democrats made progress—but they were stymied by backlash and bad-faith BS from Republicans.

Democrats kicked off with a stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which they tailored to attract Republican support. They spent over a year consumed in fruitless bipartisan negotiations over a healthcare reform package. By the time they finally passed the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on a party-line vote in March 2010, internal infighting had weakened the bill and a wave of grassroots backlash and Republican bad-faith arguments had severely damaged its popularity. Climate change legislation died in the Senate. Priorities like immigration reform, labor law reform, D.C. statehood, and more stimulus—which was still desperately needed—had fallen off the table.

In 2010, voters punished Democrats for their inaction and rewarded Republicans for their obstruction.

The result was unfortunate but unsurprising: Democrats lost big in 2010. The economy was improving but still terrible. In tempering their ambition, Democrats had failed to deliver quickly enough to convince voters to stick with them. President Obama described the 2010 midterms as a “shellacking” for himself and the Democrats—and indeed they were. The 2010 midterm defeat effectively killed President Obama’s legislative agenda for the rest of his presidency, well before McConnell took over in the Senate in 2015.

Our job now is to make sure Democrats don’t repeat the same mistakes they made then. The remainder of this chapter lays out four lessons to learn from.

Lessons from former congressional staffers

Lesson One: Expect the GOP to obstruct, delay, and engage in bad faith BS

What Democrats thought would happen

Democrats thought that if they negotiated with Republicans to pass their agenda, they could reach a deal and pass bipartisan legislation. They thought that compromising with Republicans would increase their chance of success and add legitimacy and permanence to their legislation. They believed by doing so, they would inoculate themselves against the charge that they had rammed their agenda through Congress.

What actually happened

Reaching compromise with Republicans turned out to be a sisyphean task. Democrats spent months going around in circles with Republicans which slowed down their legislative agenda. Democrats repeatedly sacrificed key priorities in the process without any Republican support to show for it. Despite these self-imposed delays by Democrats, Republicans still accused them of ramming through a radical agenda.

Congressional Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell in the Senate, used every tool available to delay and obstruct Obama’s agenda. Some of the common tactics they used included:

  • Delay: The GOP engaged in bad-faith negotiations for the sole purpose of delaying legislation;
  • Obstruction: The GOP used procedural tools to obstruct the process. McConnell was particularly adept at weaponizing the filibuster in the Senate;
  • Bogus arguments: The GOP spread misinformation about provisions in Democratic bills (e.g., “death panels!” and “the deficit!”), and manipulated the press into giving their claims legitimacy.

Recalling how Republicans engaged, Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it best:

The Republicans were very clever in what they did. They pretended that they were interested…It was all an illusion.
-SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI

Lesson for today:

Republicans know that the only way that Democrats will succeed is if they move quickly, so Republicans will do everything they can to obstruct and delay. They will try to weaponize President Biden’s understandable desire for unity to tempt him into wasting time and political capital on negotiations that aren’t real. Mitch McConnell has called democracy reforms “socialism” and a “power grab,” and he’s pledged to be the “Grim Reaper” of all progressive legislation. Instead of foolishly looking for Republican votes that will never materialize, Democrats should focus on keeping their caucus together and passing bills with Democratic votes. This focus on caucus unity will be especially critical given the 50/50 split in the Senate, and the need for every single Democrat to vote with the party in order to accomplish anything on our agenda.

Lesson Two: Prepare to counter a far-right extremist backlash

What Democrats thought would happen

President Obama entered the White House with a landslide and what looked like a clear mandate for his agenda. What’s more, Obama had built a massive grassroots base of 13 million supporters through Obama for America (OFA), which he hoped to mobilize in support of his legislative agenda. With broad public support behind them, Democrats hoped they could move quickly through their legislative priorities without negative repercussions.

What actually happened

Democrats were unprepared for the grassroots, conservative backlash that grew as congressional debates stretched on. The Tea Party, which began to pick up steam in early 2009, was locally-focused, well organized, and hell-bent on stopping as much of the Obama agenda as possible. We saw it up close—in fact our experiences with the Tea Party served as inspiration for the original Indivisible Guide (minus their racism and violence). This reactionary grassroots force pressured Republicans to reject compromise with Democrats, and made it as politically painful as possible for Democrats to support Obama’s agenda. Meanwhile, the brilliant organizing effort by Obama for America that had built a Blue Wave in 2008 failed to translate into any sizable grassroots movement in support of Obama’s agenda in 2009.

The result was entirely predictable: The public narrative became one of one-sided, massive opposition to Obama and his legislative priorities. This was most evident in the August recess town halls of 2009 when Democrats nationwide were captured on video being yelled at by angry constituents who opposed “Obamacare,” without any grassroots support to counter their message.

Lesson for today:

The victory isn’t the election, it’s the legislation. To win on legislation, we have to stay engaged well after an electoral victory like the one we had in November 2020. This is harder than it sounds—the truth is that it’s just easier to mobilize people who are angry, and so we should expect more grassroots energy in opposition to the Biden agenda to increase, like we saw in 2009 with the rise of the Tea Party. But the hard truth is that we’ll need to brace for something far worse than the Tea Party, because armed white supremacists have been further emboldened and organized under Trumpism and have vowed to be ungovernable. These white supremacist forces will be a prominent feature of our political landscape in the months ahead. It will be our job, together, to build a political and organizing strategy that takes them into account, and wins anyway. Our side needs to disarm their political pressure at opposition with our own bigger and braver grassroots movement, and make sure Biden’s agenda isn’t blocked or severely weakened the way Obama’s was. That’s where Indivisibles come in.

Lesson Three: Expect congressional Democrats to get cold feet

What Democrats thought would happen

Worried that legislative overreach would cost them their majority in the next election, Democrats sought to moderate both in terms of the ambition of their bills and the strategies they undertook. They narrowed the scope and scale of their major agenda items, including their recovery package, health reform, Wall Street reform, and their climate bill. They took their time publicly debating their major bills, hoping to avoid accusations that they rammed their agenda through Congress. They put limits on how much they were willing to spend on their agenda, including a $1 trillion cap on the ACA. They thought that by doing so, they could enact enough of their campaign promises but spare themselves an electoral backlash in 2010.

What actually happened

Instead of passing bills that matched the scale of the problems they were trying to solve, Democrats chose to pass scaled down bills in hopes of maintaining a sheen of bipartisanship. They weakened their own legislation and self-imposed arbitrary caps on the price tag of their key agenda items. For example, they passed a stimulus package that was too small to pull our economy out of recession. They passed a health care bill whose most popular benefits were scheduled to phase in years later (because it kept the price tag lower).

At the end of the day, this political strategy failed. Republicans called them anti-American socialists all the way up to the 2010 midterms anyway. Democrats ultimately lost control of the House in 2010, and empowered obstructionist Republicans refused to move on Obama’s agenda for the remainder of his presidency.

Lesson for today: Expect Democrats to get cold feet.

Democrats will fear losing their majority and there will be calls—some from within the Democratic caucus—to weaken their own legislative agenda. This won’t guarantee that Democrats keep their majority, but it will guarantee that we fail to adequately address the crises our country faces. That’s why outside grassroots pressure will be crucial for stiffening their spines and holding the caucus together against bad faith calls to compromise.

Lesson Four: Go big, go fast, get it right

What Democrats thought would happen

With a popular mandate and Republicans ostensibly ready to work with them, Democrats believed that time was on their side and they didn’t need to rush to enact their agenda. Obama and congressional Democrats believed they could start with a smaller stimulus and come back to pass additional bills if they needed to. For the rest of their agenda, they thought they could take their time, have lengthy public debates, get buy-in from Republicans and the public, and move through the items on their legislative agenda one-by-one relatively easily.

What actually happened

President Obama and congressional Democrats wasted precious time debating and courting Republicans, and burned through much of their political capital in the process. They settled on a lower price tag for their economic recovery package in exchange for a few Republican votes, then quickly learned that Republicans and conservative Democrats had no appetite to give them more. The result was a bill that was too small to pull our economy out of the recession—and extended hardship for millions of American families.

On health care, Democrats also spent more than a year painfully debating what would eventually become the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Not only did the protracted debate in Congress fail to yield a single Republican vote in support, but the extended, public sausage-making process left the final product widely unpopular. By the summer of 2010, with the midterms just a few months away and Democrats already feeling the heat back at home from angry constituents, Obama’s agenda had stalled.

Lesson for today:

Democrats will have a small window to pass major legislation. We’ve spent the last two years in the House having the policy debates in preparation for this moment. Democrats must enter the 117th Congress with a sense of urgency and move quickly to pass bold solutions that match the severity of the crises we face. This is where we’ll need successful national Indivisible coordination to make sure our message (prioritizing bold structural democracy reform!) comes through loud and clear.

How Misinformation ‘Superspreaders’ Seed False Election Theories

There are a small number of influential people, including the president, who have repeatedly been instrumental in stoking misinformation about the election, excerpts from January 8, 2021 The New York Times article “Trump isn’t the only one” by Shira Ovide.

Researchers have found that a small group of social media accounts are responsible for the spread of a disproportionate amount of the false posts about voter fraud.

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube should subject the prominent band of habitual online misleaders to stricter rules. Today, online companies consider only the content of online messages, not the identity of the messenger to decide whether a post is potentially harmful or dangerously misleading and should be deleted or hidden. Prominent people need to be subjected to stricter rules for repeat offenders of false information. That would include Mr. Trump and other world leaders who have used their online accounts to inflame divisions and inspire mob violence.

For example, starting with Eric Trump on November 5, 2020, using the hashtag, Stop the Steal, asked his Facebook followers to report cases of voter fraud. His post was shared over 5,000 times. Later that day, conservative media personalities Diamond and Silk had shared the hashtag along with a video claiming voter fraud in Pennsylvania. Their post was shared over 3,800 times. That night, conservative activist Brandon Straka asked people to protest in Michigan under the banner #StoptheSteal. His post was shared more than 3,700 times. Over the next week, the phrase “Stop the Steal” was used to promote dozens of rallies that spread false voter fraud claims about the U.S. presidential elections. Across Facebook, there were roughly 3.5 million interactions — including likes, comments and shares — on public posts referencing “Stop the Steal” during the week of Nov. 3.

It just took just 33 posts on Facebook that were liked, shared or commented 13 million times. These posts created a narrative that would go on to shape what millions of people thought about the legitimacy of the U.S. elections.

In November, the New York Times found just 25 Facebook accounts, including those of Trump and the right-wing commentator Dan Bongino, accounted for about 29 percent of the interactions that researchers examined of widely shared Facebook posts about voter fraud.

A coalition of misinformation researchers called the Election Integrity Partnership found that about half of all retweets related to dozens of widely spread false claims of election interference could be traced back to just 35 Twitter accounts, including those of Mr. Trump, the conservative activist Charlie Kirk and the actor James Woods. Most of these 35 accounts helped seed multiple falsehoods about voting, the researchers found.

Now is the time for all of us to begin to repair this broken system of communication and influence.

Republicans planning to challenge the Electoral College results on January 6, 2021

So far, 37 Republican representatives, I’m aware of, and eleven senators, led by Ted Cruz (R-TX), see list below, have indicated they will challenge some of the state electoral votes for Biden when Congress counts them on Wednesday, January 6. There may be a total of 140 Republican representatives challenging the electoral votes.

They are alleging the need for an investigation into irregularities in the 2020 election, although they have failed repeatedly to produce any evidence of such irregularities in court. An investigation would simply convince people that the election results are questionable. The attempt of these Trump Republicans to launch yet another baseless investigation is in keeping with their use of investigations to discredit Democrats since at least 2012.

Trump Republicans are trying to undermine the election, and Biden’s administration, with a disinformation campaign. These Republicans are jockeying for the 2024 presidential nomination and want to make sure they can pick up Trump’s voters. They are a faction, “Sedition Caucus,” of the Republican Party which refuses to accept the legitimacy of a Democratic president, no matter how big the victory.

Biden won by more than 7 million votes and by 306 to 232 in the Electoral College. The Trump campaign has either lost or had dismissed 60 of the 61 cases it has brought over the election. Democracy depends on a willingness to transfer power peacefully from one group of leaders to another.

Senators:

Tommy Tuberville (R-AL)Mike Braun (R-IN)Roger Marshall (R-KS)John Kennedy (R-LA)Sen. Josh Hawley (MO)Steve Daines (R-MT)James Lankford (R-OK)Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)Bill Hagerty (R-TN)Ron Johnson (R-WI)Senators-Elect Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)

Representatives:

Rep.-elect Jerry Carl (Ala.)Rep.-elect Barry Moore (Ala.)Rep. Mo Brooks (Ala.)Rep. Andy Biggs (Ariz.)Rep. Paul Gosar (Ariz.)Rep.-elect Lauren Boebert (Colo.)Rep.-elect Byron Donalds (Fla.)Rep. Matt Gaetz (Fla.)Rep.-elect Andrew Clyde (Ga.)Rep. Jody Hice (Ga.)Rep.-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.)Rep. Clay Higgins (La.)Rep. Ted Budd (N.C.)Rep.-elect Madison Cawthorn (N.C.)Rep. Jefferson Van Drew (N.J.)Rep.-elect Yvette Herrell (N.M.)Rep. Jim Jordan (OH)Rep. John Joyce (Pa.)Rep. Fred Keller (Pa.)Rep. Mike Kelly (Pa.)Rep. Dan Meuser (Pa.)Rep. Scott Perry (Pa.)Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (Pa.)Rep. Lloyd Smucker (Pa.)Rep. GT Thompson (Pa.) Rep. Jeff Duncan (S.C.)Rep. Ralph Norman (S.C.)Rep. Mark Green (Tenn.)Rep.-elect Diana Harshbarger (Tenn.)Rep. Brian Babin (Texas)Rep. Louie Gohmert (Texas)Rep. Lance Gooden (Texas)Rep.-elect Ronny Jackson (Texas)Rep. Randy Weber (Texas)Rep.-elect Burgess Owens (Utah)Rep.-elect Bob Good (Va.)