Let’s talk about a civic uprising

What does that mean? How do we get there?

Mainstream media coverage of the widespread anti-Trump protests on April 19 was much more extensive than it was after the April 5 protests -- despite smaller crowds.

Watch MSBNC’s Rachel Maddow wrap up the coverage and the protests on her show Monday night – it’s must-see TV. Read the coverage from the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Associated Press, and CNN.

To me, the increased media attention signifies a growing recognition that we are in a period of civic unrest – that the public rejection of the Trump/Musk agenda is going to be a big part of the American story in the coming months.

It certainly didn’t hurt when conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks – David Brooks!! – wrote a jawdropping piece on Thursday calling for mass resistance:

It’s time for a comprehensive national civic uprising. It’s time for Americans in universities, law, business, nonprofits and the scientific community, and civil servants and beyond to form one coordinated mass movement. Trump is about power. The only way he’s going to be stopped is if he’s confronted by some movement that possesses rival power.

But what does a national civic uprising look like? Progressive activist Robert Reich asked that question in his newsletter on Friday. Then he answered:

It may look like a general strike — a strike in which tens of millions of Americans refuse to work, refuse to buy, refuse to engage in anything other than a mass demonstration against the regime.

And not just one general strike, but a repeating general strike — a strike whose numbers continue to grow and whose outrage, resistance, and solidarity continue to spread across the land.

I urge all of you to start preparing now for such a series of general strikes.

Whether you call it a general strike, a social strike, or a civic uprising, such actions are a step beyond protests in that they have a direct effect on a large number of people. They can’t be ignored. And they demonstrate power – the power to shut things down.

As labor historian Jeremy Brecher wrote recently:

The goal of a social strike is to affect not just the immediate employer, but a political regime or social structure. Such forms of mass direct action provide a possible alternative when institutional means of action prove ineffective. In all their varied forms they are based on Gandhi’s fundamental perception that “even the most powerful cannot rule without the cooperation of the ruled.”

Why is the idea of mass actions catching on? Brecher cites three principal reasons:

1. The wide range of people being harmed by the MAGA juggernaut gives credibility to actions based on wide public participation.

2. The demolition of key institutions of democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law is threatening to leave few alternatives to popular uprising.

3. The fecklessness of the leadership of the Democratic Party, as sublimely illustrated by Sen. Chuck Schumer’s passage in March of the devastating MAGA budget, has led to despair about resistance within the institutions of government.

I wrote about what might precipitate the “next step” in resistance back on March 5.

And on March 26, I wrote about how the goal for anti-Trump activists is to mobilize 3.5 percent of the U.S. population – or about 12 million people.

One key question about a strike is what role labor unions would play. On the one hand, it’s almost impossible to imagine a general strike working without the enthusiastic participation – indeed the leadership – of labor unions. On the other hand, unions are traditionally loath to call for strikes that aren’t directly tied to contract negotiations, and there are also legal risks, internal politics and the risk of failure to be considered.

Hamilton Nolan, who writes about labor in his newsletter, How Things Work, told me in an interview this week that he thinks the major unions will come around. Trump has already directly attacked unions, including by signing an executive order ending collective bargaining for over a million federal workers.

“I just think that even the parts of organized labor that are not inclined to think in terms of a general strike are going to kind of run out of moves at some point,” Nolan told me.

Nolan said that another nationwide protest set for May 1 will be a test case for people in the labor movement who are thinking about a general strike.

“They’re going to kind of look at that and see how it goes, see what kind of turnout they can get, see what public reaction is like,” he said.

You can get information about the Mayday protest here; and can sign up for an event near you.

Universities Fighting Back!

It is exhilarating to report that the moral collapse of Columbia University, caving into outrageous and reactionary demands from the Trump administration, appears to have been a one-off.

About 300 college and university presidents (so far) have signed a public statement vowing to fend off any such encroachments:

As leaders of America’s colleges, universities, and scholarly societies, we speak with one voice against the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education. We are open to constructive reform and do not oppose legitimate government oversight. However, we must oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses. We will always seek effective and fair financial practices, but we must reject the coercive use of public research funding.

Harvard University – far from caving -- has now filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent Trump from slashing billions of dollars of its research funding as retribution for standing up to the administration’s ridiculous demands. As Harvard argues in its complaint:

The First Amendment does not permit the Government to “interfere with private actors’ speech to advance its own vision of ideological balance,” nor may the Government “rely[] on the ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion . . . to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored speech.” The Government’s attempt to coerce and control Harvard disregards these fundamental First Amendment principles, which safeguard Harvard’s “academic freedom.”

The University of Michigan Board of Regents announced that they will not capitulate to “unlawful or unconstitutional demands.” They wrote:

What’s at stake is nothing less than the ability of American universities to continue leading the world in research, innovation and education, while serving as stewards of free inquiry.

And they doubled down on their commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion :

Efforts to promote access and opportunity are not illegal, and we will continue to support and grow programs that create educational pathways for students across our state and beyond.

Faculty senates within the Big Ten Academic Alliance, a conference of 18 universities, have joined together in a “mutual defense compact” against Trump's "threat to the foundational principles of American higher education."

And check out New York University, where around 300 professors, student and others marched on Thursday to protest student visa revocations. In addition, more than 50 NYU faculty members have moved their classes off campus in what they call a “sanctuary picket” to protest the university’s failure to take steps to protect immigrant students from abduction and deportation.

So Many Lawsuits

In my other newsletter, Press Watch, where I engage in media criticism, I wrote this week about the obvious reason there have been so many lawsuits filed against the Trump/Musk regime: They keep breaking the law. On purpose.

Just Security is tracking 206 legal challenges at last count.

Among this week’s highlights:

• A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday ordered the Trump administration to reverse the shutdown of Voice of America. “It is hard to fathom a more straightforward display of arbitrary and capricious actions than the Defendants’ actions here,” Judge Royce Lamberth wrote.

• A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Friday ordered the Trump administration to reverse its firing of 90 percent of the employees at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, ruling that the move appeared to violate her earlier order against firings without specific causes.

• A Massachusetts federal judge on Friday granted a preliminary injunction to a group of noncitizens who sued the Department of Homeland Security to stop its practice of deporting noncitizens to a country that is not their country of origin or citizenship without first providing them with notice or opportunity to contest.

• A federal judge in Atlanta on Friday granted a preliminary injunction and protective order barring the government from terminating the immigration status of 133 students and recent alumni at universities across the country.

Boycott Working

CNN reports about the backlash after Target announced it would scale back its diversity, equity and inclusion commitments:

For 10 consecutive weeks, foot traffic at Target stores has declined — down 9% year-over-year in February and 6.5% year-over-year in March, according to data from analytics firm Placer.ai. While Placer.ai notes a variety of factors were likely to blame, like weather and a drop in post-holiday spending, Rev. Jamal Bryant has driven another reason for a drop-off: a fast — from shopping.

“They hear me. The cash register hears me,” Bryant told CNN. “Power concedes nothing without a demand.”

Target’s stock price is also down more than 30 percent since the announcement. Walmart and Costo stock, by comparison, are actually up in that same period.

Small Victories

Remember the woman who was pulled from her seat, wrestled to the ground, and dragged out of a high school auditorium two months ago for heckling at a Republican town hall in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho? The six private security guards who assaulted her have now been charged with battery and false imprisonment. And the victim, Teresa Borrenpohl, is seeking $5 million in damages.

Looking for Inspiration?

If you haven’t already, please read the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion authored by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a conservative Reagan appointee, thrashing the Department of Justice for refusing to seek the release Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man who was deported to El Salvador last month without due process and despite a court order forbidding him from being sent there. Wilkinson wrote, in part:

It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter. But in this case, it is not hard at all. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done.

This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.

Pretty much every paragraph is a stirring reminder of what we in this republic stand for – a vision shared by almost everyone other than the cruel and vengeful extremists currently leading our government.