'We Are Relearning Democracy': 5 Ways the Anti-Trump Movement Is Energizing Political Action

It’s worth pausing to reflect on the severe sense of political skepticism that has become not only commonplace, but also expected, each and every time any progressive movement attempts to engage in any political action in this country. One of the reasons for this is that public protests and marches seem to translate uneasily into concrete political outcomes.

As Moisés Naím wrote in The Atlantic in 2014, “The problem is what happens after the march.”

This criticism, of course, was the common tactic used to discredit the success of Occupy Wall Street (OWS) as a movement with impact. Despite the fact that basically everyone on the planet knows the notion of the 1 percent thanks to OWS, the commonly accepted idea is that public protests go nowhere.

Naím argues that “Behind massive street demonstrations there is rarely a well-oiled and more-permanent organization capable of following up on protesters’ demands and undertaking the complex, face-to-face, and dull political work that produces real change in government.”

That’s where Indivisible comes in. Indivisible began as a guidebook to help empower anti-Trump resisters so they could take their energy and translate it into concrete political change.

Well, actually, it began in a bar.

Similar to many of us who sought to drown our sorrows after the election, married couple Ezra Levin and Leah Greenberg found themselves at a bar in Austin, Texas, drinking and wondering what could be done to stop Trump.

But, unlike the rest of us, Levin, Greenberg and colleague Sarah Dohl had some specific ideas. Levin and Dohl had worked for Congressman Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, when the Tea Party launched in 2009, and they witnessed firsthand the effectiveness of that movement. They noted that Tea Party protests worked even in the context of a president who had majority support. They figured that the combination of Trump’s weak mandate and unlikeability had to make him an easier target for political resistance than President Obama had been.

So they took the best, most effective tactics from the Tea Party and marshaled them for a step-by-step guide to bring down the Trump platform. They posted it on Facebook and figured their moms and a few friends would like it, and that would be it.

But the guide went viral; web traffic crashed the Google document. So they created a website and worked with a core team of others to develop their plan into something that could really steer local groups.

As Dohl shared with me via email, as of March 21, Indivisible had 18.47 million page views, 3.03 million unique users from every state, 2.02 million downloads/views of the Indivisible Guide, and 2.97 million searches for a group, meeting or event. They currently have 5,802 verified groups, with at least two in every congressional district.

As a point of comparison, the Tea Party spiked at about 1,000 local groups.

And we also now know that the Tea Party may have appeared to have been a grassroots movement, but it was actually orchestrated and funded by Big Oil, Big Tobacco and the Koch brothers.

Meanwhile Indivisible really did start as an organic upsurge, helped, in part, by the fact that the guide caught the attention of noted public figures like Robert Reich, Rachel Maddow and George Takei.

And yet, as Indivisible has been gaining in visibility and success, it has been hounded by another common criticism of leftist action: that its members are paid and that it is not authentic. White House spokesman Sean Spicer recently called the liberal activism at rowdy congressional town halls a “very paid, Astroturf-type movement.” They have also been accused of being funded by George Soros.

Levin has countered that the group is “is very much led on the ground” by activists who are determined to take action against Trump and is not under the sway of any one donor or group.

What perhaps is even more noteworthy is that despite both Spicer’s and Trump’s efforts to discredit Indivisible, it is not only gaining momentum, it is continuing to accumulate examples of measurable success.

In one noteworthy example, Indivisible urged its supporters to take advantage of the congressional recess that occurred during the week of Feb. 17-26, during which time members of Congress often hold town halls back home. They issued a step-by-step guide to help members use these town halls to great effect, especially in cases where the lawmaker was nowhere to be found.

In some cases “concerned” individuals launched campaigns to locate their “missing” representatives. For example, missing posters featuring Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., were posted around his California congressional district. Missing notices for Rep. Paul Cook, R-Calif., were posted on milk cartons within his district and posted to the @WhereIsPaulCook Twitter account using the hashtag #prayforpaul, and a tongue-in-cheek candlelight vigil was held to mourn his absence and urge him to return home to his constituents. Other town halls were held with empty chairs, empty suits, or even a chicken standing in for the missing politician.

And while some skeptics will start listing the various ways that Indivisible won’t measure up to the sort of meaningful political resistance we need in the wake of the Trump debacle, here are five reasons why this movement is making a difference.

1. Strategy

Unlike the Women’s March or OWS or any number of other spontaneous political action groups we have seen, Indivisible is founded on the idea that political change requires a clear strategy. Its number one goal is to “demystify congressional advocacy.” Its second goal is to support local groups trying to use their political toolkit.

Billy Fleming, co-author of the Indivisible Guide, put it this way: “We’re really good at demystifying Congress in a way that can be used by all of their different members to take the most effective action possible.”

As Bob Burnett, a member of Indivisible Berkeley, explained it to me during a phone interview, the goal is to help the public “relearn democracy,” which means that much of the focus is on skills and tactics that work.

The website is filled with how-tos, action guides and scripts. It helps take the mystery out of the political process and allows engaged citizens to turn their passion into political change.

2. Complementarity

Indivisible counteracts previously accepted ideas about political action that make assumptions that specific forms of activity are more effective than others. It does not pit one form of organizing against another. Instead it has built a platform that complements the initiatives of a given local group, whether they are planning marches, sit ins, call banking, or, as in one case, a die in to protest changes to health care. 

Naím argued that the problem with the political efficacy of protest is that most movements lack an organization ready to engage in the “complex, face-to-face, and dull political work that produces real change in government.”

Indivisible is teaching us that real change in government doesn’t have to be either complicated or dull. And it is showing us that political change can launch from the streets or from the corner bar.