Beyond relying on entirely recycled rhetoric, all that’s missing from Governor Gavin Newsom and the musical chairs contenders to the throne is an actual means to stop President Trump from doing anything. For all the bold talk, every single one of these individuals is entirely powerless.
After immigration enforcement protests in Los Angeles rapidly descended into riots complete with hurling rocks at cop cars, burning other cars on the street, and looting stores prompted President Donald Trump to deploy the National Guard backed by Marines to protect federal buildings, Democrats and their progressive allies have crowned a new leader of The Resistance, California Governor Gavin Newsom. CNN’s Edward-Isaac Dovere, described the Governor’s newfound national stature despite being broadly criticized earlier this year for his response to the wildfires this way, “Democratic politicians have spent the last few months talking about standing up to President Donald Trump in his second term. California Gov. Gavin Newsom is among the first faced with figuring out what standing up actually looks like.” In his view, both “Allies and opponents agree how Newsom handles the protests – including Trump’s calling in the National Guard and sending in active-duty Marines over the governor’s objections – will reverberate far beyond California, and long after this week.” As proof of this contention, Mr. Dovere cites how other Democrat governors have been rallying around Governor Newsom in a rather circular fashion, “calling [him], checking in, ticking through scenarios in their minds of how what’s happened in California could play out at home for them, according to multiple people briefed on the conversations.” In addition, every “Democratic governor signed onto a statement over the weekend calling Trump’s call-up of the National Guard an ‘alarming abuse of power.’” MSNBC, for their part, seemed to agree, writing, “Amid immigration raids, peaceful protests, attacks on law enforcement officers and the threat of his own arrest by federal agents, California Gov. Gavin Newsom is immersed in what could be the most consequential political fight of his career. The battle between the president and the governor of the country’s largest state instantly turned Newsom into the face of resistance to President Donald Trump’s expansive interpretation of the authorities of his office and mass-deportation campaign.” As proof of Governor Newsom’s emergence, both CNN and MSNBC referred to an address on Tuesday night, wherein he claimed, “What Donald Trump wants most is your fealty. Your silence. To be complicit in this moment. Do not give into him. If some of us can be snatched off the streets without a warrant – based only on suspicion or skin color – then none of us are safe. Authoritarian regimes begin by targeting people who are least able to defend themselves. But they do not stop there.” “This isn’t just about protests here in Los Angeles,” he continued. “When Donald Trump sought blanket authority to commandeer the National Guard, he made that order apply to every state in this nation. This is about all of us. This is about you. California may be first, but it clearly will not end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next. Democracy is under assault before our eyes. This moment we have feared has arrived.”
Of course, anyone who has paid any attention at all over the past decade has heard this all before, over and over again. Immediately after the election, The Guardian claimed “Trump cabinet criticized as hodgepodge team unified only by ‘absolute fealty’ to him.” Ten days later, The Brookings Register said the same, “It’s all about their fealty” and “Trump’s cabinet picks only designed to show dominance.” In February, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, more on him in a moment, posted on Facebook, “Fealty to Donald Trump will not spare you from his cruelty. It’s strength — not weakness — that curbs his baser instincts. Now is the time for us to be strong.” If anything, the idea that President Trump is an authoritarian has an even longer history to the point where there’s a veritable cottage industry around the claim. In April, NPR reported that a “survey of more than 500 political scientists finds that the vast majority think the United States is moving swiftly from liberal democracy toward some form of authoritarianism. In the benchmark survey, known as Bright Line Watch, U.S.-based professors rate the performance of American democracy on a scale from zero (complete dictatorship) to 100 (perfect democracy). After President Trump’s election in November, scholars gave American democracy a rating of 67. Several weeks into Trump’s second term, that figure plummeted to 55.” In March, The Guardian had it, “The Trump administration is descending into authoritarianism. From media to culture and the arts to the refusal to abide by court orders, we’re nearing ‘Defcon 1 for our democracy’, experts say.” As even they admit, we’ve heard this story before, “Much was said and written by journalists and Democrats during last year’s election campaign arguing that Trump, who instigated a coup against the US government on 6 January 2021, could endanger America’s 240-year experiment with democracy if he returned to power… Sixty days in, the only question is whether the warnings went far enough.” Supposed scholars have also gotten in on the act. Gabe Fisher, for example, published “Donald Trump’s Authoritarianism: The Decline of Democracy Under Trump” back in 2021, claiming “Donald Trump was the most anti-democratic president in American history. During his 2016 campaign, he encouraged violence at his rallies. He also levied harsh attacks against his opponents and even called one a ‘devil.’ When he assumed office as president, he demanded complete loyalty and levied attacks against the press that conjured up memories of notorious autocrats.” Amazon even features a book on the topic, written a year earlier, “Authoritarian Nightmare: Trump and His Followers.” The description reads, “How did America end up with a leader who acts so crudely and despotically, and counter to our democratic principles? Why do his followers stick with him, even when he acts against their own interests? To fully understand, John Dean, a man with a history of standing up to autocratic presidents, joined with Bob Altemeyer, a professor of psychology with a unique area of expertise: Authoritarianism. Relying on social science findings and psychological diagnostic tools (such as the ‘Power Mad Scale’ and the ‘Con Man Scale’), as well as research and analysis from the Monmouth University Polling Institute (one of America’s most respected public opinion research foundations), the authors provide us with an eye-opening understanding of the Trump phenomenon — and how we may be able to stop it.”
Beyond the rhetoric, Democrats have been obsessed with finding a new leader of the Resistance since President Trump retook office in January. In between various outrages and ridiculous claims that tacos would take down the President, candidate after candidate, sometimes entire institutions have been assigned the role. The first to audition since President Trump returned to the Oval Office were Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who embarked on a “Fighting Oligarchy” tour in March. “This isn’t just about Republicans. We need a Democratic Party that fights harder for us too,” Representative Ocasio-Cortez told sizable crowds to applause, “But what that means is that we as a community must choose and vote for Democrats and elected officials who know how to stand for the working class.” In her view, the President had “handed the keys to Elon Musk and is selling this country for parts to the richest people on the planet for a kickback. In exchange, they will bankroll his campaigns and those of his allies.” “They are like heroin addicts – they need more and more and more,” Senator Sanders claimed, “And if they destroy Social Security and Medicaid to get what they want, that is what they will do.” Shortly after the tour began, CNN claimed, “Bernie Sanders’ message of resistance finds fresh life as Democratic Party searches for direction.” “As Democrats have scrambled in recent months to energize a deflated Democratic Party and counter President Donald Trump’s power shift in Washington, Bernie Sanders has emerged as a leading voice of the resistance with a familiar refrain,” they continued. Alas, he was almost immediately overshadowed by Senator Cory “Spartacus” Booker, who held the floor of the chamber for a record breaking 25-plus hours in a non-filibuster filibuster. Once again, progressives and their allies in the media were impressed. The New York Times’ Tracey Tully reported that “Cory Booker’s 25-Hour Speech Strikes a Chord at Home. Many Democrats, including in Mr. Booker’s home state of New Jersey, reveled in his stamina and moxie as he assailed President Trump in the longest Senate speech on record.” As she described it, “For 25 hours and five minutes, Mr. Booker, who will turn 56 this month, did not sit or exit the Senate chambers to eat or use a bathroom. His speech broke, by nearly an hour, a record set 68 years ago by Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, a segregationist who at the time was trying to block civil rights legislation. Americans noticed. The social-media-savvy senator streamed the speech live on his TikTok account, where it garnered more than 350 million ‘likes.’ And more than 110,000 people were watching on YouTube when Mr. Booker ended his speech in much the same way he began: with an homage to a mentor, the civil rights pioneer John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat who spent three decades in Congress.” “The Democrats have been acting like it’s OK what Trump is doing, and it’s not OK,” explained Angel Leston. “Now, there’s finally some fire.” Vivian Cox Fraser, president of the Urban League of Essex County, claimed “Somehow you have to demonstrate opposition. The one thing I hope is, it will be the impetus for a lot more — for us to stand up.” Ryan Haygood, a New Jersey civil rights lawyer and leader of the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice, said Senator Booker putting “his full self into it” was inspirational. “We need voices everywhere, on every level, fighting for the foundation and soul of this country,” he added.
For better or worse, Senator Booker didn’t last long on The Resistance throne either before being eclipsed by Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, the billionaire heir to the Hyatt hotel fortune, and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, both mentioned earlier. In February, Governor Pritzker compared the current position of the United States government to pre-World War II Germany, “If you think I’m overreacting and sounding the alarm too soon, consider this: It took the Nazis one month, three weeks, two days, eight hours and 40 minutes to dismantle a constitutional republic,” he said during his joint budget and State of the State address on February 19. “All I’m saying is when the five-alarm fire starts to burn, every good person better be ready to man a post with a bucket of water if you want to stop it from raging out of control,” he continued. More recently, he called for people to take to the streets in something perilously close to violent revolt. After assailing “Those same do-nothing Democrats want to blame our losses on our defense of Black people, of trans kids, of immigrants, instead of their own lack of guts and gumption,” he declared, “Never before in my life have I called for mass protests, for mobilization, for disruption, but I am now,” stressing that Democrats “must castigate them on the soapbox and then punish them at the ballot box.” “We will never join so many Republicans in a special place in hell reserved for quislings and cowards,” he added. The Associated Press swooned in response, claiming he and Representative Ocasio-Cortez were some kind of duo, “billionaire heir and the former bartender. Many Democrats have been in and out of the spotlight as the party looks for effective counters to President Donald Trump and his second administration. But two disparate figures, Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, have seen their national profiles rise by delivering messages that excite a demoralized and fractured party. The governor, a 60-year-old heir to the Hyatt hotel fortune, and the congresswoman, the 35-year-old with working-class roots, both won their first elections in 2018. Both have urged mass resistance and accused their party of not fighting more. Each has stood out enough to draw sharp retorts from Trump loyalists.”
As you might have guessed, neither lasted long at the top before progressives settled on an entire institution to lead The Resistance. Harvard, of all places, stepped into the breach because of a dispute over federal funding, generating much the same sort of coverage to the point where the articles could have been repurposed by ChatGPT from the last time around. The Guardian’s Jan-Werner Muller declared, “Harvard is refusing the plainly illegal demands by the Trump administration. That sends an important signal: resistance is possible.” The New York Times described Harvard’s decision to resist President Trump as “momentous” and they did it “in a way that injected energy into other universities across the country fearful of the president’s wrath.” Mass Live wondered if Harvard’s resistance might spread, asking “Is Harvard’s resistance to Trump igniting a broader movement across higher ed?” “Harvard University rejected demands by the Trump administration this week, sounding a rare note of defiance among higher education institutions — which have often stayed silent or capitulated when pressed by federal action,” they began. “Some are looking at this moment as a potential turning point for higher education in an environment where most are still fearful of speaking up or fighting back against threats from the federal government.” For its part, Axios broadened the narrative, literally, claiming “Trump’s agenda meets broad resistance from American institutions.” As they put it, “Educational institutions, law firms, broadcasters, nonprofits and corporate shareholders are all currently fighting or rejecting the Trump administration’s policies and executive orders.” This, apparently, really matters because “Widespread pushback against President Trump’s agenda is starting to take shape,” as though that hadn’t always been the case and wasn’t entirely predictable to begin with. “At a time when trust in government is waning, business has emerged as a rare beacon of optimism and civility,” explained Sheila Mulligan, president of Weber Advisory, a firm that found about 6 in 10 Americans claimed democracy in the country was “volatile.” “This gives C-suite leaders greater license — and responsibility — to lead on issues shaping our economy and democracy,” she continued, “but that influence must be exercised with discipline, grounded in business and cultural relevance, stakeholder expectations, and aligned with enterprise values.”
Sadly, Harvard didn’t last long either before Democrats and progressive turned to a celebrity, legendary singer and songwriter Bruce Springsteen after he harangued President Trump during his recent European tour. As The Bulwark described it “Bruce Springsteen Gave Us a Roadmap for Surviving Trump. The Boss has always understood the undercurrents of America. His words now provide a way through this mess.” “What Bruce said sounded to me like a new North Star,” Jennifer Palmieri wrote. “I am a believer in the power of a winning attitude in politics. The best presidential campaigns are built on it. If the candidate and staff expect to win, it affects every decision, producing leaders who are certain of what they believe in and what they are elected to do. That’s what Bruce provided.” Now, they’re onto Gavin Newsom. Beyond relying on entirely recycle rhetoric, well past the point of diminishing returns, all that’s missing is an actual means to stop President Trump from doing anything. For all the bold talk, every single one of these individuals is entirely powerless. Governor Newsom’s attempt to use the courts to block President Trump’s use of the National Guard was immediately rejected. Setting aside whose position has more popular support among the public, the Governor and everyone before him are essentially screaming at the sky, the same as the iconic image of a progressive in 2016. The reality is simple: In our system of government, it is almost impossible to remove a sitting President during their four year term. The opposition party can either choose to work with the occupant of the Oval Office on select issues where they have the opportunity to influence the outcome or oppose them entirely. Opposing them entirely, however, has consequences, which the Democrats are experiencing now and will only get worse. First, faced with blanket opposition to anything and everything, the President has no incentive or reason to reach across the aisle, making it better to ignore and fight rather than work together, something President Trump clearly excels at. Second, blanket opposition as we are experiencing offers Democrats no opportunity whatsoever to take credit for any successes. If recent economic numbers are any indication, we are likely to head into the midterms with a solid and improving economy, lower taxes, lower inflation, and lower interest rates, but recalcitrance in the face of this will have a price that Democrats might not be prepared to pay.
Confessions of a Conservative Atheist 