Resistance 1.0 Was Not Crazy
The much-derided movement was right about Trump’s nature, and how to defeat him.
Resistance 1.0 Was Not Crazy
Donald Trump gleefully mocked the defeat of retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Alex Vindman, a former witness in his first impeachment, during a recent election. Vindman's loss highlights the decline of "resistance" politics within the Democratic Party. Other high-profile impeachment supporters, like Dan Goldman, George Conway, Tom Steyer, Diana DeGette, and Harry Dunn, have also lost primaries.
This string of defeats has been seen as a sign that the era of resistance politics is over, with the phrase now considered a derisive joke across the political spectrum.
However, the resistance was correct in its portrayal of Trump's nature and methods. The Robert Mueller investigation found that Trump had ties to Russia, posing a grave counterintelligence threat. The Senate Intelligence Committee reported that Trump's campaign had links to Russia, and his actions during his first term proved this to be accurate. Trump's corruption and power abuses have escalated during his second term, severing America's alliances and aligning with dictators like Kim Jong Un.
The resistance's failure to remove Trump from office due to insufficient Republican support and the decline of "resistance liberal" credentials have led some to dismiss it as ineffective. However, resistance politics shaped Democrats' messaging during Trump's first term, contributing to their House victory in 2018 and their defeat of Trump's reelection bid.
Despite this, progressive Democrats still criticize Trump's corruption without delving into progressive policy proposals. The split between progressive and liberal Democrats, first seen in 2017, has persisted, with progressive critics blaming resistance's lack of a strong progressive message for its failures.
Written by urgent.news from The Atlantic's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
