Thread by @mcjulie

Yesterday I saw that Radio Free Tom guy had a tweet or two about how he thought anti-DJT protesters had made a tactical error by protesting from day 1 & I wanted to talk about how incredibly wrong his thinking is.

His argument appears to go like this:
1. Republicans claim the impeachment of DJT is just a Democratic hit job, unrelated to his malfeasance.
2. In Mr. Tom's opinion, this claim is "resonating" with people.
3. BECAUSE there has been such strong resistance to DJT from the start

4. THEREFORE, it was a mistake to protest from the start, because if we had "kept our powder dry" (his wording) we could START protesting now instead.
5. And this would be better, for some reason.

Every proposition is faulty, PLUS the logical chain connecting them is faulty.

While it's entirely true that Republicans are claim the impeachment of DJT is just a Democratic hit job, unrelated to his malfeasance, Mr. Tom presumes there exists an alternate universe where they WOULDN'T be claiming that.

This is incorrect. There is nothing Democrats can do now, or could have done differently in the past, that would prevent Republicans from making the claim that impeachment is a partisan hit job.

DJT could have shot his proverbial man on fifth avenue and Republicans would be screeching that prosecuting him for murder is a partisan hit job.

Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to straight-up lie on DJT's behalf, and also to believe any lie he tells no matter how outrageous.

When Republican statements are already unaffected by truth and unaffected by reality, how could you imagine that they would be affected by the actions of Democrats?

His second proposition, that this claim of partisan hacker is "resonating" with people, is simply meaningless. Resonating? With non-Republicans you mean? Who? And what difference does it make?

The impeachment of Bill Clinton was 100% a partisan hit job, everyone knew it, but that didn't really change anything. He was still impeached and not removed by the Senate, which has been the likely outcome all along for DJT.

The only thing that would change that equation is if there are Republican senators who 1. fear for their seats, 2. believe their own constituents want removal.

So we're talking fired-up red state Democrats.

So, I dunno, just at a glance, do you think red state Democrats get more fired up by protests and other public action, or by.... uh... sitting quietly? And waiting for Democrats in the House to do a thing?

One mistake even protesters often make is assuming that protests are mostly for the benefit of an an outside, non-protesting observer.

They are ALSO for the benefit of the protestors. To connect with like-minded people, share information, keep spirits up, remember what they're fighting for, etc.

Proposition three, that notion that the Republican claim of partisan hackery is resonating more strongly BECAUSE of early resistance to DJT is flat-out ahistorical. And that history is so recent, there's no excuse at all.

While there has certainly BEEN an "Impeach him already" undercurrent from the beginning, the early protests -- things like the Women's March -- WERE NOT PRIMARILY ABOUT IMPEACHMENT.

There were protests about the Muslim ban, about mistreatment of immigrants, about threats to the ACA, about the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh -- it's downright offensive to suggest that these things should NOT have been protested merely to "keep our powder dry"

And good lord, what a phrase that is. "Keep our powder dry." For what? The fight that **really** matters? Someday? In the future?

GUESS WHAT CHUCKO, THEY ALL MATTER.

If there's ANYTHING the last 30 years of politics should have taught us, it's that. ALL the fights matter. You can't win every fight, but they all MATTER.

And if Democrats over the last 30 years have an overarching weakness, it's been doing EXACTLY what Mr. Tom is suggesting: keeping quiet, hanging back, keeping our powder dry, waiting for just the right moment.

In retrospect, every single Tea Party demonstration should have been met with a counter-protest. I know it didn't seem like it. "Obama, we've got your back!" didn't seem, at the time, like a message worth standing in the rain for.

In retrospect, though, I think it was. Could we have kept Mitch McConnell out of the Senate with constant activism during the Obama years? Maybe? We certainly didn't TRY, though, and that's what I'm talking about.

I don't know where Mr. Tom gets the idea that protests are like a video game extra life or something, where you can only use it once so you have to get the timing exactly right. They're more like a stampede or an avalanche.

Look at the narrative one way: DJT, admitted sexual assault repeat offender and obvious Russian puppet, wins the presidency on a technicality, after gross journalistic misconduct over "her emails," and pissed off women stage worldwide protests of record-breaking numbers.

This carries over to Democratic House victories in the mid terms, when a record-breaking number of women get sworn in. With a Democratic majority impeachment becomes a potential reality, some Dems start calling for it right away, others need more convincing.

DJT is so corrupt that he's been committing impeachable offenses since day 1, pick your favorite outrage. But Nancy Pelosi, a cautious sort, waits for him to do something NEW and really obvious before starting the process.

Republicans cry foul! Partisanship! Witch hunt! Outrageous!

And Mr. Tom thinks they have a point, I guess, so he really wishes the earlier protests hadn't happened? Because then Mr. Tom WOULDN'T think Republicans have a point?

But would there even BE a Democratic majority in the House without things like the Women's March?

We protest everything DJT does because everything he does is worthy of protest. Yes. Literally. Everything. And I do think that makes some people uncomfortable, particularly proud centrists and Republicans-at-heart like Mr. Tom.

"Well, surely not EVERYTHING he does is worthy of protest..."
"Nope, everything."
"But that seems so extreme."
"Yes, it does, doesn't it?"

Strong opinions & activism coming from the left* make a lot of people uncomfortable, including people ostensibly ON the left. Liberals are expected to be moderate. When we're not, people act like it's a faux pas.

*In current US political alignments & parlance

And I think maybe BECAUSE it's interpreted as a faux pas by some people, they keep looking for the argument that it's objectively bad -- counter-productive, for example.

It's basically tone policing.

"If you would just be nicer, more civil, more moderate, you'd be listened to more."

But the evidence suggests otherwise.

My breakfast is done now so I guess that's the end.

Addendum: Wonkette is on it.

https://twitter.com/Wonkette/status/1205159857055248388