Trump, Democrats, and the art of political theater
The problem with the Democrats’ response to President Trump’s hostile takeover of Washington is not that Democratic politicians aren’t unified or outraged enough, as if those would accomplish anything.
No, the problem with the response is the same as their problem with the last election campaign: a stubborn refusal to talk honestly about the problems most Americans care about and offer better and more politically appealing solutions, even if it means offending the party’s interest groups.
And there is one more problem. For all his many other faults, our Huckster in Chief is a master of political theater who knows how to dominate the stage, define the issues, and con the audience with his bluster and nonsense. The “shock and awe” of the last two weeks have been a masterful feat of political choreography showcasing modern-day Caesar bullying heads of state, business titans, university presidents, media moguls, and members of his own party into obsequious submission while dispatching agents in riot gear to deport migrants and political henchmen to purge the bureaucracy of political enemies.
And the Democrats’ response?
Red-faced senators sputtering outrage at smugly cool and confident cabinet nominees who deftly ducked their questions and ran out the clock.
Or how about dour-looking politicians lined up like potted plants behind hunched over 74-year-old party leader wearing half-moon glasses and an ill-fitting suit reading off poll-tested talking points to reporters?
So, what would an effective Democratic response look like?
It would start with a million angry Americans marching on the Capitol and iconic landmarks in half a dozen cities around the country to give a sense of what real democracy and real resistance looks like.
It would include raising tens of millions of dollars in small-dollar donations to run hard-hitting ads in Republican districts to undermine public support for Trump’s nominees who lack the experience, character, and judgment to hold some of the most sensitive posts in government.
It would involve recruiting top-notch lawyers to aggressively challenge the legality of every one of Trump’s executive orders and represent—pro bono— FBI agents and prosecutors and other civil servants fired or harassed for doing their jobs.
And while we’re at it, how about a social media campaign to get people all around the world to boycott Twitter, with hints that Facebook and Instagram could be next.
On Capitol Hill, an effective Democratic response would mean putting forward politically attractive alternatives to the far-right policies on immigration, taxes, spending, and energy that will be included in the “one beautiful bill” Republicans intend to push through in the next few months on a straight party-line vote. I’m not talking about alternatives that would double down on a progressive agenda thrice rejected the voters. I’m talking about alternatives so appealing to swing voters in swing districts that the Republicans who represent them would be hard-pressed to vote against them.
Putting these alternatives on the table would widen the rift in the Republican caucuses between “moderates” and hardliners. It would also give Democrats the chance to begin rebranding a party seen by too much of the country as out of touch with their needs and priorities. And if, by some chance, a version of these Democratic alternatives were actually voted on and adopted, it would be a huge blow to Trump’s momentum and his aura of invincibility.
Republican leaders, of course, would use every parliamentary trick to ensure that members have no opportunity to debate or vote on any alternatives or changes to the multi-trillion-dollar package that emerges from their backroom negotiations. So the choice facing Republican “moderates” is either to hold their nose and vote in favor or vote against it and be guaranteed a primary challenge and the wrath of the Trump mob. Given the slim Republican majorities, it would take only four Republican defections in either chamber to open up the process.
If Democrats were serious about resistance, they would show up en masse in the normally empty House and Senate chambers and use every parliamentary trick to delay and disrupt consideration of the package. To maintain control of legislative business, all Republicans would have to come to the chamber as well. And with that, Democrats could create the kind of political theater that Frank Capra could appreciate. Endless points of order and parliamentary inquiries and motions to overrule the chair. Testy exchanges between members. Crowds of members standing in the well, arms raised, shouting for recognition or the chance to offer amendments, with the presiding officer pounding the gavel in a vain attempt to restore order.
The dramatic showdown could last for days, all of it broadcast live and replayed in a continuous loop on cable TV and becoming the focus of media attention. Democrats could use the process to shine a harsh light not only on the Republicans’ thuggish tactics but on the many provisions that most Americans wouldn’t find so beautiful. Republicans from swing states and districts, finding themselves in a very public political bind, could easily defect if they cannot win concessions.
Effective resistance to Trump’s blitzkrieg won’t come from cranking up the outrage machine or enforcing a suffocating party unity. Serious and effective resistance requires offering credible alternatives that voters prefer. And it requires creating compelling narratives that can grab people’s attention and reframe the debate.
Flood the zone, take risks, divide and distract the opposition, and forget about business as usual. Resisting Trump requires beating him at his own game.
Steven Pearlstein is a Senior Fellow at Penn Washington. He is also the Robinson Professor of Public Affairs at George Mason University and a former Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Washington Post. The views expressed here are his own.