Archive for the ‘Progressives’ Category

Why Progressives Should Be Hopeful: Trump, Immigration, and the Media – Patheos (blog)

It was another chaotic weekend for the Trump administration.

It began with Steve Bannon taking on the mainstream media. On Thursday, Bannon told the New York Times, The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while. Then on Saturday Trump signed an executive order that bars citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States for the next 90 days and suspends the admission of all refugees for 120 days.

Confusion ensued as Trumps chief of staff, Reince Priebus, claimed that the order doesnt affect anyone with a green card, but later said of course anyone with a green card from Syria, Iran, Sudan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen would be affected.

Airport officials were confused, Muslims were detained, and Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham created a joint statement that criticized the order, Our government has the responsibility to defend our borders, but we must do so in a way that makes us safer and upholds all that is decent and exceptional about our nation.

In other words, Trumps order fails to live up to American ideals.

And Americans have spoken. Americans took to the streets and airports to protest when Trump announced his ban on children and their parents fleeing war torn areas. Trump said, We dont want you here. But the American people said, We do want you here.

And as a progressive, Im filled with hope. Trump was right about one thing during his inaugural address. The power is not with Trump. Its not with the media. The power is with the people.

This brings me back to Steve Bannon and the mainstream media, specifically the New York Times. Why does the Trump Administration, along with Bannon, consistently try to demonize the mainstream media? Its because they know that they are weak and that the media holds the power in the relationship.

In addition, Bannon holds a love/hate relationship with the New York Times. Bannon was the executive chair of Breitbart News. He has described it as the platform of the Internet-based alt-right.

As Donald Trump declared in November, the New York Times is, a great, great, American jewel, a world jewel. Breitbart? Not a jewel. And Bannon knows that the New York Times is more powerful and more influential that Breitbart will ever be.

Anthropologist Ren Girard calls this the model-obstacle relationship. Whether we are aware of it or not, we all have models. We all have people we want to be like. But our models want to hold onto power, prestige, or success. To do that, they can become an obstacle in our desire to be like them. This leads to increased feelings of jealousy, envy, and rivalry.

Bannon envies the New York Times. The Times is his model for success. Thats why he calls them the opposition party. The model of success is always a potential rival, in this case, the opposition. We want our model to admire us. Trump and Bannon envy the Times because of the Times success, and even more because they desperately want the Times to admire them.

But the New York Times refuses to admire the Trump Administration. Thank God! Thats not their job. But theres nothing more that Trump and Bannon want than to be admired. Why? In part because they are human, but also because they know they are politically weak.

Thats how these events of the weekend are connected. Trump doesnt have a mandate. He lost the popular vote. Hundreds of thousands of people joined the womens march in Washington DC, while many more marched throughout the world. From Seattle to New York, protesters spoke out against the refugee ban to tell people fleeing war torn countries that they are in fact welcome here. And many more of us are flooding Congressional email boxes and calling our representatives to tell them this act of exclusion is un-American.

Indeed, as a progressive Im filled with hope because we are witnessing that the power is with us the people. But in our protests and our search for justice, we would do well to realize that the Trump Administration is already weak. Their grasps for power are signs of their actual weakness.

As such, we must be careful to not turn Trump or Bannon into our models or into rivals. They are politicians in desperate need of an enemy. And so they create an enemy out of the mainstream media or the elite or the progressives.

We cannot afford to play their game. For when we do, we make them into our model and we give them more power than they deserve. The Trump Administration is not our enemy. Our current enemy is their divisive policies. And we must fight against those policies. But we would do well to do so in a way that doesnt demonize them. Otherwise, we make them into our model. And they become our obstacle. And we play right into their hands.

Images: Donald Trump (By Michael Vadon [CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons); Protesters (By Nathan Keirn from Kadena-Cho, Japan (NAK_2421.jpg; to the Commons uploaded by odder) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons); Steve Bannon (By Don Irvine (Steve Bannon) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons)

Stay in the loop! Like Teaching Nonviolent Atonement on Facebook!

Read the original:
Why Progressives Should Be Hopeful: Trump, Immigration, and the Media - Patheos (blog)

Progressives warn Democrats: Stand up now or face challenges in ’18 – WGNO

Control of the Senate will be key to the early successes of a Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton administration. The House is also up for grabs Tuesday night, but Republicans are widely expected to keep their majority -- even if their current 246-186 seat advantage is narrowed.

(CNN) Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer stepped to the microphone to rally a crowd of President Donald Trumps opponents in New Yorks Battery Park on Sunday.

Are we gonna win this fight? he asked.

The cheers Schumer got back were mixed with jeers. Stop voting for his nominees! an attendee shouted back.

The episode showed the pressure Democratic senators face as they head into another week of votes on Trumps Cabinet nominees.

Democrats have watched as progressives turned out en masse at pro-Obamacare rallies, then stunned the political world with the attendance across the globe at womens marches, and now are opposing Trumps executive order banning travel to the United States from seven Muslim-majority nations with protests at airports across the the country.

The protesters and activists loyalty, though, is to their causes not to Democrats and what binds them is their strident opposition to Trump. They are demanding total opposition to the Presidents Cabinet nominees, and turning their fury on Democrats who dont fight Trump tooth and nail.

Even the partys liberal icons like Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts arent getting the benefit of the doubt.

Warrens committee vote to confirm Ben Carson for secretary of Housing and Urban Development set off intense backlash on the left leading to Warren addressing her vote in a Facebook post that began with the frustrated line: OK, lets talk about Dr. Ben Carson.

Yes, I adamantly disagree with many of the outrageous things that Dr. Carson said during his presidential campaign. Yes, he is not the nominee I wanted, Warren wrote. But the nominee I wanted is not the test.

Some Democrats are attempting to strike an impossible balance: The left craves the same tactics Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell used to stymie President Barack Obamas legislative agenda and block him from filling a Supreme Court vacancy.

But Senate Democrats have also sought to pick their battles, knowing that one day Republican senators could face the same pressures to oppose a Democratic president.

Tying nominees to executive order

On deck Monday is a Senate vote to advance the nomination of former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson to become secretary of state.

Democrats are now expected to push for the vote to be delayed until he comments on the Trump travel ban on refugees and citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries.

Democrats say this is going to be a big line of focus going forward, hoping to to put the question to all the nominees on whether they support the executive order. This includes non-controversial nominees, including Elaine Chao, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnells wife, who was chosen to head the Department of Transportation and would have oversight on the airline industry/airports.

Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, Trumps pick for attorney general, energy secretary nominee Rick Perry, the former Texas governor, Rep. Ryan Zinke, Trumps Interior Department pick, and education secretary nominee Betsy DeVos are all slated for committee votes Tuesday.

Trump could also roll out a Supreme Court nominee as early as Tuesday, setting off another battle royale on Capitol Hill.

Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine the 2016 Democratic vice presidential nominee tweeted a passionate criticism of Trump on Saturday, saying the United States should not turn our backs on widows and orphans fleeing the very evil we despise.

Then a response came from Howard Dean, the former Democratic National Committee chairman and progressive hero.

Tim, this is great but the Dems in the Senate actually have to do something about this stuff. You are being left behind by your base, Dean wrote.

Kaine defended himself Sunday on NBCs Meet the Press, arguing that opposition to Trumps Cabinet nominees is so fierce in part because of Democrats tough questioning.

We are holding Trump nominees feet to the fire, demonstrating to the world that many of them are either unqualified or extreme or ethically challenged. And Ill tell you, Chuck, I have never seen calls to my office from folks the way Ive seen them over these cabinet nominees, Kaine told host Chuck Todd. And thats because a lot of us on the Democratic side are cast in a spotlight on what theyre doing.

The real test of Democrats reading of the national mood, though, will be a set of five red-state senators up for re-election in 2018: Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly, Montana Sen. Jon Tester, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin and North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp.

Dean wasnt the only Democrat calling on the partys senators to block Trumps nominees.

Dan Pfeiffer, a long-time top Obama aide, tweeted that Democrats need to oppose Trump nominees including Sessions.

We cant live in a world where Trump violates every norm and Democratic elected officials support people like Sessions out of courtesy, he said.

In Battery Park on Sunday, Linda Sarsour, a Palestinian American activist and former Bernie Sanders campaign surrogate, said that any Democrat who voted to confirm Sessions should expect a primary challenge next time theyre on the ballot.

Thats not a threat, she said. Its a promise.

View original post here:
Progressives warn Democrats: Stand up now or face challenges in '18 - WGNO

Why can’t progressives celebrate incremental progress? – The Week Magazine

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

Nothing is perfect.

That's as true in politics as it is in all other aspects of our lives. Not even the most devoted supporter could plausibly argue that America's first black president was perfect. The same is true of the historic nomination of Hillary Clinton, or of the biggest mass demonstration in U.S. history.

That doesn't mean Barack Obama's presidency, Hillary Clinton's nomination, or the Women's March on Washington were progressive failures. They were, in many cases, very good for progressives. They marked real, meaningful progress. They just weren't perfect.

But all too often, progressives seem inclined to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

After the Women's March on Jan. 21 which inspired an estimated 3 to 4 million to rally for women's rights in cities across the U.S. and around the world progressive critiques immediately started rolling out.

None of this is to say that these assessments are invalid, incorrect, or without merit. Many transgendered Americans did feel unfairly left out of the Women's March. A big percentage of white women did vote for Donald Trump. And the American left in general, and the Women's March specifically, surely has a long way to go before achieving the laudable goals of intersectionality. And obviously, any member of any group has the right to speak up when they feel excluded. The march undoubtedly could have been more diverse, more self-aware, and more pointed in its cause.

In fact, not even Clinton who arguably achieved the biggest mark of progress for women in 2016, even if she fell short of the ultimate goal made the cut on the Women's March's list of honorees. The March's oversight spurred further dissatisfaction, giving birth to the hashtag #AddHerName.

Obviously, this isn't the first time women have debated how warmly to embrace Clinton. No woman should feel compelled to support a political candidate just because of a shared gender identity. But for proponents of equality and women's rights, Clinton's historic nomination should have offered at least some cause for celebration. But many bristled: They wanted a woman, just not this woman.

Feminist Camille Paglia, for one, refused to celebrate a woman who has "ridden" on her husband's "coattails." An intersectional feminist suggested the color of Clinton's skin made it hard for her to fully appreciate Clinton's accomplishment. "The election of a white woman to the highest office doesn't say a whole lot about my feminism," said Imani Gandy, co-host of the This Week in Blackness Prime podcast.

Obama, too, has faced criticism from the left for not being enough:

Though columnist Julia Craven gives a nod to how Obama is seen "as an indication of how much black Americans can accomplish," she criticizes Obama for avoiding appearing "too black," causing him to fall short of "fully doing what needed to be done to improve race relations."

The writer wasn't alone in thinking that. Van Jones, Obama's former special adviser on green jobs, said that "sometimes it felt like he was president of everyone except black people." Activist Al Sharpton conceded Obama "never gave [the black community] a bill that hurt us," but he "would have liked to see the Obama years do more."

Those are legitimate criticisms of Obama. But so often these days, "not enough" is equated with failure rather than what it actually is: good but not great.

Things can always be better. And activists of all stripes should never stop striving toward something better. Indeed, progress could never be achieved if people simply sat back and said "good enough." But progress is often incremental. Even when a step in the right direction carries with it traces of society's multitudinous shortcomings and failures and inequalities, it can still count as forward motion. Sometimes it's okay to celebrate the good, even if the good is far from perfect.

The Women's March wasn't a flawless demonstration. But millions of people still showed up and took a stand for what they care about and believe in. Clinton might not be the ideal feminist, and her campaign was certainly not free of poor decisions, but at least we can finally say a woman won a major political party's presidential nomination and the country's popular vote. Obama might not have made as much progress as some hoped he would, but at least, after 43 white men, America finally had a black president.

These evaluations may seem to lack nuance. But at their core, each of these accomplishments still contains an obvious win for liberal values that can and should be celebrated. And if liberals can only be satisfied when perfection is reached, they will never satisfied.

Go here to read the rest:
Why can't progressives celebrate incremental progress? - The Week Magazine

Progressives launch last-minute push against Betsy DeVos, and conservatives counter with online ad campaign – Washington Post

Betsy DeVos, Donald Trump's nominee for education secretary, appeared before senators at her confirmation hearing on Jan. 17, but some of her responses created more questions than they answered. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

More than 300 state lawmakers hailing from all 50 states have added their voices to the chorus objecting to President Trumps nomination of Betsy DeVos as education secretary.

The lawmakers, who are overwhelmingly Democrats, voiced their opposition to DeVos in a joint letter that is expected to be delivered to U.S. Senators on Monday, the day before a Senate committee is scheduled to vote on her nomination.

They comprise a minority of the more than 7,300 state legislators nationwide, but their criticisms echo those that have been made in recent weeks by Democratic Senators, labor unions, civil rights groups and advocates for children with disabilities, as well as many parents and teachers.

[Teachers, parents, kids protest DeVos ahead of confirmation vote]

The state lawmakers argue that DeVos, who has no professional experience in education, is unqualified for the job and that the charter schools and voucher programs she has worked to create and expand have undermined public schools, which they see as critical civic institutions that serve the majority of students.

As states embrace greater authority over education under the new Every Student Succeeds Act, the legislators wrote, we are deeply concerned that Ms. DeVos will bring her lack of experience with public education, her failure to understand key federal laws, and her track record of undermining public education at the state level with her to Washington.

The letter was coordinated by SiX Action, a group that has ties to labor and pushes progressive policies within states. (Read the full letter at the bottom of this post.)

The state lawmakers letter is just one of the latest volleys in what has become a pitched partisan battle over DeVoss confirmation.

[Key Republican defends DeVos, says Dems are desperately searching for reasons to reject her]

America Rising Squared an arm of the Republican super PAC America Rising on Monday launched an online advertising campaign defending DeVos as someone who knows what it takes to repair our failing schools.

The 30-second video accuses Democrats of bowing to the will of teachers unions and playing politics as usual with DeVoss nomination. It will run on social-media platforms nationally but will target residents offive states with Democratic senators: West Virginia, Montana, North Dakota, Missouri and Indiana.

By trying to block this extremely well-qualified nominee, Senate Democrats are once again putting the interests of their big labor allies ahead of the needs of millions of American kids trapped in the failing status quo, said Brian Rogers, executive director of America Rising Squared. Betsy DeVos is a critical part of the change America voted for this election, and we look forward to her serving with great distinction as Secretary of Education.

[ National Education Association: More than 1 million emails sent to senators urging a vote against DeVos]

America Rising Squared has been involved in promoting other Cabinet nominees, including Jeff Sessions forattorney general, Scott Pruitt for administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Andrew Puzder for labor secretary, and Tom Price for health and human services secretary. But a spokesman said the five-figure ad buy on DeVoss behalf is the organizations most significant involvement to date.

The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions is scheduled to vote on DeVoss nomination Tuesday, with a full Senate vote expected in the coming weeks.

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) said last week on MSNBCs Rachel Maddow Show that virtually all Democrats will vote against DeVoss nomination. But DeVos appears very likely to be confirmed: Republicans hold the Senate majority, and no GOP senators have indicated they intend to oppose her.

State lawmakers urge U.S. Senators to reject Betsy DeVos as education secretary by emma brown on Scribd

Originally posted here:
Progressives launch last-minute push against Betsy DeVos, and conservatives counter with online ad campaign - Washington Post

Turning resistance into power: What’s next for progressives after the Women’s March? – Salon

What next? That is the obvious question in light of the unprecedented success of the Womens March, although it was obvious to march organizers well in advance.

This march is the first step towards unifying our communities, grounded in new relationships, to create change from the grassroots level up, the Womens March mission statement said. And its already doing that. [T]here was no shortage of organizing small-group organizing, large-group organizing, mass organizing taking place on Saturday, and every day following, Adele Stan noted at the Prospect. Connections made between activists from across the country in these spaces are likely to last and flourish, especially in the age of social media.

Onstageat the march, actress America Ferrara concluded her early remarks by saying, This is only day one in our united movement, and asking participants to take out your cellphone and text women to 40649 so that we can continue to work together. The theme was echoed repeatedly by others after her.

But the big question, really, goes well beyond hypothetical solidarity: Howwill all these efforts will come together? It seems certain that there wont be just one single answer. Resistance is crucial, and the Womens March has raised the level of resistance to Nixon-era levels in just a matter of weeks a truly astonishing feat. But the crucial challenge is how to move from resistance to governing power, and thats where things grow far more complicated, as any veteran activist will tell you. But a number of paths forward have already become clear.

First, the Womens March has clearly established mass public resistance as the new normal, which is absolutely vital. When Republicans held their retreat in Philadelphia a few days later, protesters flooded downtowns Thomas Paine Plaza until they packed every inch of concrete, local legend Will Bunch reported on his Attytood blog. He noted a cacophony of hundreds of signs including one saying This Is Not Normal.

Except that slogan is not exactly operative anymore. Actually, less than a week into the terrifyingly frenetic 45thpresidency of Donald Trump, todays wild scene on the streets of Philadelphia of several thousand people marching, chanting and protesting Trumps speech at the Loews Hotel to congressional Republicans has already become practically routine. In terms of numbers, the anti-Trump movement has in mere weeks surpassed a scale that it took the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1960s years to reach.

Second, mass resistance must become repetitive, building power over time. Along these lines, MoveOn.org, along with Peoples Action and the Working Families Party, has initiated a series of #ResistTrumpTuesdays demonstrations intended to last through Trumps first 100 days. In the first action, over 10,000 people in more than 200 cities rallied outside congressional offices urging senators to Stop Trumps #SwampCabinet.

Targets included Democrats as well as Republicans, in line with Amanda Marcottes argument here that Democrats should unite in opposing all Trump nominations. If every person who marched [in the Womens March]were to visit their Congress members office one time this week on their way to work or after school we would be unstoppable, MoveOn organizing director Victoria Kaplan said, dovetailing with the next point.

Third, resistance must be intensely and intelligently targeted. This is the message of the wildly popular Indivisible Guide downloaded more than a million times that has brought together more than4,500 local groups who have signed up to resist the Trump agenda in almost every congressional district. Initiated by a group of progressive former congressional staffers, the guides strength lies partly in its laser focus on pressuring Congress, based on the example of the Tea Party:

We saw them organize locally and convince their own MoCs [members of Congress] to reject President Obamas agenda. Their ideas were wrong, cruel, and tinged with racism and they won.

If the Tea Party could do that against a popular president with a mandate for change and a supermajority in Congress, then its possible to do the same against Trump. Thats the argument. And the response has been overwhelming. Theyre now in the process of forming a nonprofit to do two big things better: First, to continue demystifying congressional advocacy in an ongoing fashion, and second, to support local groups involved in putting guidance into practice. The response so far is overwhelmingly positive.

But theres a hitch. This argument implicitly assumes some degree of symmetry between the two major political parties, and the philosophies that animate them a problematic assumption at best, as I discussed last August. Democrats arethe party of government in America, responsive to the needs of diverse coalition of groups. They are the ones who believe government can and should work to promote the general welfare, as it says in Constitution, and thus they feel obligated to make it work, even in compromised form. Republicans are the party of obstruction and destruction, and have been so openly since at least the time of Newt Gingrichs speakership. That difference made it much, much easier for Tea Partiers to influence the Republicans to adopt a stance of total resistance than it could be for progressives to get Democrats to do the same.

To make a similar strategy work, progressives will have to do more than the Tea Partiers did. They must advance a positive agenda, in addition to calls to resist Trump and the GOP, and they will have to message it effectively in the face of a media that is conditioned not to listen. This brings us to our next point.

Fourth, people have to have a realistic hope of regaining power nationally, which means the 2018 midterms. Its a seemingly unsurmountable task, as explained by former Salon editor David Daleys book, Ratf**ked: The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal Americas Democracy (Salon interview here.) Republicans strategy for hijacking the redistricting process in 2010 has produced entrenched GOP legislative power (both in Congress and state legislatures) which sees itself as largely immune to public opinion and only beholden to the most extreme elements of the Republican base. But Trump, and the unprecedented level of resistance hes generated, may have changed that as well or at least created an opening.

This is where the another new group with an audacious goal comes in. Swing Left appeared virtually out of nowhere, asking people to sign up to focus on winning swing districts in Congress in the 2018 elections, and got 100,000 people to sign up in four days around the time of the Womens March. It has since doubled that number. But there are serious questions about how well a new organization can turn such a fantasy into reality.

One diarist at Daily Kos was profoundly dubious, starting off with a tweet from an old friend, Not impressed with this site. Put in my Seattle zip code, told me two nearest swing districts are in Alaska & Nevada. I can understand how he felt, but if you look at Swing Lefts map, youll understand. Swing districts arent to be found everywhere: There are only a smattering from the Dakotas clear across to the West Coast, and none north of Colorado, Utah and Nevada.

Still, they are close enough to plenty of people who would like to get involved. There are three each within a short drive of Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia and Minneapolis, and two near Detroit, Boston and Tampa-St. Petersburg. Moreover, every swing district represents an opportunity to build collaborative grassroots power, mobilizing thousands who would otherwise be sideline observers. Swing Lefts organizing model includes roles for people inside districts, near districts and outside districts, so even out-of-state volunteers can play a role. And, of course, where congressional swing districts are rare, theres always state legislatures to consider. After all, those bodies will hold the keys to reversing the GOP gerrymander after the 2020 census.

More serious are questions of how well-conceived the Swing Left approach is, and how well it will mesh or conflict with other efforts. The end goal of Swingleft, and new websites that pop up forprogressives could be to continue the ongoing party polarization by running unverified progressive candidates against registered Democratic candidates in primary races, the Daily Kos diarist wrote. Such intra-party battles are often to thebenefit of conservative candidates and to the RepublicanParty. This seems unduly negative, but the desire for clarity is perfectly sound. So Salon reached out to Swing Left to learn more. Michelle Finocchi responded via email, on behalf of the Swing Left team.

GOP gerrymandering has created high barriers to retaking the House. Your plan is the first one Ive seen that would seem to have a chance. That said, I have to ask how much thought and research you have devoted to this history. Or was it simply a math exercise, OK, heres what looks possible?

Theres no question taking back the House will require a massive effort from progressives all across the country. But the best way we can do it is by mobilizing countless individuals in all districts who have not seriously participated in the democratic process before. We saw the beginnings of that this past weekend when millions of Americans stood up for our values in marches all across the country, and we think at Swing Left that we can be a key part of the continuation of that movement. We now have a lot of volunteers whove made it clear they want to help and get involved in the political process. Our central focus is to organize and to fulfill the promise we made to these people to connect them with actionable opportunities in their closest swing districts, to flip the House, no matter where they live.

An old friend made the point that there were no districts within hundreds and hundreds of miles of him. I can understand why that happened, but I also understand his reaction, and theres an obvious response: to add a focus on state legislative swing districts. Since state legislatures are key to redistricting the House, getting started on this in 2018 and going full bore in 2020 would seem to be a wise strategic addition. Have you thought about doing this?

We completely agree this is an incredibly important goal. However, as we just launched a week ago, were remaining focused on our strategy of helping to take back the House in 2018 so we can help build a better country on areas ranging from climate change to income inequality to civil rights and so much more.

Your initial outreach says little about the sort of politics you are trying to promote. Is it just taking back the House for the Democratic Party? Theres a lot grassroots energy out there looking to support people on a more principled basis, even in seemingly challenging districts. Ive written about Doug Applegate, the progressive who came close to beating Darrell Issa, and think of him as a good example of the latter. Have you given any thought about how youll approach such questions?

We will be supporting all candidates who share the values of tolerance, democracy and equality and are committed to halting the radical Republican agenda in 2018. If a candidate in a swing district satisfies those qualifications, then well be behind them in the general election.

Ive encountered some concern along the lines of Who are these people? Do they have any clear idea what theyre doing? This could be a huge diversion of energy, etc. How would you respond to these sorts of concerns?

To take back the House, we need an all-hands-on-deck approach from progressives all across the country, targeted to the swing districts that need help the most and thats what were working to help build. We dont view that as a goal that takes anything away from other causes or organizations.

Whats the biggest challenge you see for yourselves at this point, and what are you doing to meet it?

The response to Swing Lefts launch and the explosion of growth weve experienced in the last week has been beyond our wildest expectations, and we have been racing all out since then to keep that momentum going. Its been exhausting, but incredibly exciting and were powering on! In our first week, weve had over 200,000 people sign up to support their closest swing district and over 10,000 volunteers offer their time and professional skills to help build Swing Left through a form on the site.

Whats the most important thing you want people to know about Swing Left?

Our mission is to take back the House in 2018 and, whether you vote in a swing district or not, you can play a huge role in that effort. No matter how much or how little time you have, you can make a real impact.

None of the above locks anyone into concrete specifics on issues, strategy or ideology. There is plenty of breathing room for a bottom-up rearticulation of vision and values that grows out of local experience. It would all sound like a pipe dream, frankly, if not for the success of the Womens March, which has dramatically energized progressive activists, veterans and newcomers alike. One thing is for certain, moving forward: the Womens March example of inclusivity, engagement and dialogue holds the key to how progressives as a whole can bring together all these different forms of resistance.

In the Guardian, Micah White, a co-creator of Occupy Wall Street and author of The End of Protest: A New Playbook for Revolution, argues: Without a clear path from march to power, the protest is destined to be an ineffective feelgood spectacle adorned with pink pussy hats, citing his own Occupy experience as a warning and contrasting that with the crucial roles womens mass actions played at key points in the French and Russian revolutions. The womens march on Versailles was the definitive point of no return for the French Revolution, he notes, and the Russian Revolution of 1917 was alsoinitially sparked, as Leon Trotsky recalls in his definitive history, by a defiant womens protest, which began on Womens Day.

But those are rare exceptions, and I dont imagine White would argue that the revolutionary regimes that ultimately resulted were what the marching women whose actions made them possible really wanted. Hence the real difficulty of the question of whats next? Whats happening on the ground right now points toward a much broader range of possibilities. There is no one answer to the question of what happens now rather, there are many, struggling to harmonize. These are only a few broad outlines of how things may unfold in practice. Its only just begun.

More:
Turning resistance into power: What's next for progressives after the Women's March? - Salon