Assault on our Constitution

Heather Cox Richardson

Senator Angus King (I-ME) took his Republican colleagues to task February 6, 2025 for their willingness to overlook the Trump administration’s attack on the U.S. Constitution.

“[W]e’re experiencing in real time exactly what the framers most feared. When you clear away the smoke, clear away the DOGE, the executive orders, foreign policy pronouncements, more fundamentally what’s happening is the shredding of the constitutional structure itself. And we have a profound responsibility…to stop it.”

“[T]he reason the framers designed our Constitution the way they did was that they were afraid of concentrated power,” King said. “They had just fought a brutal eight-year war with a king. They didn’t want a king. They wanted a constitutional republic, where power was divided between the Congress and the president and the courts, and we are collapsing that structure,” King said. “[T]he people cheering this on I fear, in a reasonably short period of time, are going to say where did this go? How did this happen? How did we make our president into a monarch? How did this happen? How it happened,” he said to his Senate colleagues, “is we gave it up! James Madison thought we would fight for our power, but no. Right now we’re just sitting back and watching it happen.”

“This is the most serious assault on our Constitution in the history of this country,” King said. “It’s the most serious assault on the very structure of our Constitution, which is designed to protect our freedoms and liberty, in the history of this country. It is a constitutional crisis…. Many of my friends in this body say it will be hard, we don’t want to buck the President; we’ll let the courts take care of it…. [T]hat’s a copout. It’s our responsibility to protect the Constitution. That’s what we swear to when we enter this body.”

 

“What’s it going to take for us to wake up…I mean this entire body, to wake up to what’s going on here? Is it going to be too late? Is it going to be when the President has secreted all this power and the Congress is an afterthought? What’s it going to take?”

Trump Dodged the Law. Blame Merrick Garland, Mitch McConnell and the Supreme Court. – POLITICO

Accountability for Trump’s Evasion of Law

Factors Contributing to Trump’s Lack of Accountability

Public Opinion and Supreme Court Decisions

Father of Ohio boy, 11, tells Trump and Vance to stop using son’s death for ‘political gain’

The father of an 11-year-old boy who was killed last year when a minivan driven by an immigrant from Haiti collided with his school bus has asked Donald Trump and JD Vance to stop using his son’s name for “political gain”.

The Guardian, , September 11, 2024

During a city commission meeting on Tuesday in Springfield, Ohio, Nathan Clark, the father of Aiden Clark, addressed the forum alongside his wife, Danielle. Speaking at the meeting, Clark said: “I wish that my son, Aiden Clark, was killed by a 60-year-old white man. I bet you never thought anyone would say something so blunt, but if that guy killed my 11-year-old son, the incessant group of hate-spewing people would leave us alone,” the Springfield News-Sun reports.

Clark went on to list politicians including Trump and Vance, who he said have been using his son’s name for “political gain”.

“Bernie Moreno [the Ohio Republican senate candidate], Chip Roy [the Texas Republican representative], JD Vance and Donald Trump … have spoken my son’s name and used his death for political gain. This needs to stop now. They can vomit all the hate they want about illegal immigrants, the border crisis and even untrue claims about fluffy pets being ravaged and eaten by community members. However, they are not allowed, nor have they ever been allowed, to mention Aiden Clark from Springfield, Ohio,” said Clark.

“I will listen to them one more time to hear their apologies. To clear the air, my son, Aiden Clark, was not murdered. He was accidentally killed by an immigrant from Haiti. This tragedy has been all over this community, the state and even the nation. But don’t spin this towards hate,” he continued.

Clark went on to say: “Did you know that one of the worst feelings in the world is to not be able to protect your child? Even worse, we can’t protect his memory when he’s gone. Please stop the hate.”

How the 2024 election will be different from 2020

The 2024 presidential election is shaping up to be a rematch between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. But while the candidates may be the same, the circumstances surrounding this contest are vastly different from four years ago.
In 2020, Trump was still operating within the broad confines of democratic norms, even as he pushed against their boundaries. But since his defeat, he has fully embraced the authoritarian playbook, transforming the Republican Party into a vehicle for his extreme agenda.
Trump’s actions after the 2020 election were unprecedented in American history. As Heather Cox Richardson writes in her March 13, 2024 blog post:
“Trump then refused to step aside for his successor as all of his predecessors had done, and has continued to push the Big Lie that the 2020 presidential election was stolen”.
This rejection of the peaceful transfer of power was just the beginning. In 2023, Trump was indicted on felony charges for mishandling classified documents. He has purged the Republican National Committee of anyone not fully loyal to him. His allies in Congress have paralyzed the legislative process with their extremist demands.
Trump’s vision for a second term is even more radical than his first. According to Richardson:
“Trump has promised that if he returns to office, he will purge the nonpartisan civil service we have had since 1883, replacing career employees with his own loyalists. He has called for weaponizing the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense, and his advisors say he will round up and put into camps 10 million people currently living in the U.S”.
This is not a normal party platform; it is a blueprint for authoritarian rule.
In contrast, Biden and the Democrats have spent the past two years demonstrating that government can work for ordinary people. With slim Congressional majorities, they passed landmark legislation investing in infrastructure, manufacturing, clean energy, and more. They have worked to strengthen civil rights and America’s democratic alliances abroad.
As Vice President Kamala Harris put it:
“With his State of the Union speech last week, President Biden passionately presented our alternative vision. We will reduce costs for families, make housing more affordable, and raise the minimum wage. We will restore Roe, protect voting rights, and finally address our gun violence epidemic”.
The choice in 2024 could not be more stark. It is a choice between a flawed but functioning democracy and an authoritarian threat; between a vision of inclusion and a nativist nightmare.
In 2020, many voters may have seen Trump as distasteful but still within normal political bounds. In 2024, no one can claim ignorance of the danger he poses. The differences between Biden and Trump, and between their visions for America, are now impossible to ignore.

Constitutional lawyers are discussing whether Trump and others involved in overturning the 2020 election are disqualified from holding office under the Fourteenth Amendment.

On August 14, 2023 an article forthcoming from the University of Pennsylvania Law Review by William Baude of the University of Chicago Law School and Michael S. Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas School of Law became available as a preprint. The article argues that the third section of the Fourteenth Amendment is still in effect and automatically disqualifies those who engaged in insurrection or rebellion.
The events surrounding the 2020 presidential election have sparked intense debates about the limits of executive power and the consequences of attempting to overturn a democratic election. The actions of Trump and others in contesting the election results have raised questions about their eligibility to hold public office in the future.
The third section of the amendment states that no person shall hold office if they have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or have given aid or comfort to its enemies.
Baude and Paulsen argue that the actions taken by Trump and his supporters in contesting the election results can be considered as engaging in insurrection or rebellion. They contend that attempting to overturn a legitimate election through unconstitutional means is a direct attack on the democratic process and the stability of the nation.
This interpretation is significant because Baude and Paulsen are associated with the legal doctrine of originalism, which emphasizes understanding the Constitution as the framers intended.
The Fourteenth Amendment was written by moderate Republicans after the Civil War to establish federal government supremacy and ensure equality before the law. The article’s authors claim that their interpretation has broader implications beyond Trump’s disqualification. Other legal scholars have supported their argument and emphasized the importance of upholding the Constitution.
By holding accountable those who engaged in insurrection or rebellion, the amendment reinforces the fundamental values of democracy and the rule of law.
While some may argue that disqualification under the Fourteenth Amendment would be a drastic measure, Baude and Paulsen maintain that it is a necessary step to preserve the integrity of the Constitution and prevent future attempts to undermine the democratic process. They emphasize that the disqualification clause was intentionally included in the amendment to ensure that those who engage in rebellion against the United States are held accountable and barred from holding public office.
They argue that the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause serves as a safeguard against those who seek to undermine the democratic process and the will of the people.

Why Warnock matters

Robert B. Hubbell , November 14, 2022

  •  At the state level, Democrats did not lose control of a single legislature in 2022 that they previously held, a feat not accomplished by the president’s party during a midterm election since 1934. See WaPo. Indeed, Democrats expanded their control of Michigan’s House and Senate, Minnesota’s Senate, and (likely) Pennsylvania’s House.
  •          Also at the state level, Democratic gains at the gubernatorial level will be the best since at least 1986—and could get better if Katie Hobbs wins in Arizona!
  •         In the US Senate, not losing a seat—much less picking up seats—is a once-in-a-quarter-century event. On average, the party in power loses seven seats in the US Senate and has gained seats on only four occasions since 1934. 
  •          In the House, the party in power usually loses an average of 26 seats. Although results in the House remain uncertain, it appears that Republicans may gain only a handful of seats—if that! Although Democrats have a narrow path to retaining control of the House, it is an uphill fight. We should be patient and keep our expectations in check.

The combination of the above factors fairly describes success not seen since FDR’s first midterm in 1934.

Democrats will be able to confirm federal court judges with a simple majority. With 116 vacancies — and 62 lacking nominations, Democrats can make plenty of impact over the next two years. A Democratic majority in the Senate will also retain power over which bills come to the floor for discussion — meaning they can reject approved bills from a Republican-led House. Democrats would have more leverage over Sens. Joe Manchin (WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), the more conservative members of the party, in order to get legislation passed.

7 reasons to be optimistic about the future of democracy

By Jennifer Rubin, November 13, 2022, The Washington Post

First, Democrats made major inroads into “the youth vote.” Turnout among voters under 30 was the highest in three decades. Pennsylvania race, 70 percent of voters between the ages 18 and 29 cast their ballots for Democratic Senate nominee John Fetterman, while Fetterman won support from 55 percent of those between the ages 30 and 44. 

Second, women turned out in force to support Democrats. 72 percent of women ages 18-29 voted for Democrats in House races nationwide

First, courts have proved adept at heading off election-related shenanigans. For example, democracy defenders in Arizona succeeded in obtaining an injunction against right-wing groups menacing drop box locations.

Second, massive early voting demonstrated the ability of voters to adjust to new election rules. nearly 47 million early votes were cast this year.

Third, low turnout in competitive midterm contests is no longer the norm.

Fourth, younger voters have learned to show up at midterm elections, boding well for the health of democracy and progressive values. The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts University found that “27% of young people (ages 18-29) turned out to vote in the 2022 midterm election and helped decide critical races, wielding the growing power of a generation that is increasingly engaged even as many remain disillusioned about U.S. politics.”

Fifth, there were a number of “firsts” on Election Day. election of the first openly lesbian governors (Maura Healey in Massachusetts and Tina Kotek in Oregon) and the first African American governor of Maryland (Wes Moore). The country will also have a record number of female governors.

Sixth, the movement for women’s autonomy has arguably never been more energized. All five ballot measures on abortion during the midterms resulted in losses for the forced-birth crowd.

Finally, the Republican Party might finally be tiring of Donald Trump. The former president is a loser. The primary candidates he picked are losers. No election denier running for governor or secretary of state in a swing state won. 

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.