Christopher Schroeder

Tag: politics

  • A Less Divisible Indivisible

    The progressive organization Indivisible, which started in 2016 as a response to Trump’s first election, persuaded more than 7 million people to march against the authoritarian actions of his current administration. However, it is risking this success with its recent response to the votes about reopening the federal government.

    This organization claims that those who marched “have been failed by the Democratic leadership again” and that the Senate minority leader has “surrender[ed].” It also argues that its members “must ensure” that this “failed leadership” doesn’t “doom a future Democratic majority” by participating in its latest primary election initiative.

    Democrats can, and should, do more to oppose this “authoritarian regime,” but Indivisible in this instance is promoting an incomplete perspective. For example, it assumes that Democratic leaders could control the outcome, which is unclear, and that such votes were mistakes.

    Reasonable liberals could have a different explanation. Some for instance might think that the Democrats tried “to protect the American people” from MAGA and the Republicans who refused to negotiate, and these politicians rejected “minor concessions,” which actually don’t address the underlying health care problem, and that they accepted the political realities and agreed to reopen the Republicans’ government (Gorn 2025).

    The reality is that options available to Democrats are limited at least until they are the majority in at least one house, including the White House, or until they can convince their Republican colleagues to prioritize principles over party, which is actually the same mistake Indivisible seems to be making.

    Indivisible web site screenshot

    The problem in other words is that Indivisible is using unrealistic and unresponsive language, and in so doing seems to have switched its focus from principles to parties.

    Indivisible and other progressive organizations must remember the realities of limited attention and air time, and in so doing select issues that have the widest appeal. The issue isn’t that representation doesn’t matter, which it obviously does, but that success cannot come from identity politics, especially the kind that appeals to small segments of society.

    These organizations would be smarter in other words to focus on the issues and principles that cross current divides and speak to the most people. In doing so, these organizations need to make such arguments, and to explain why caring for communities is always better in both practical and philosophical terms for everyone.

    Such frames and arguments might differ from one part of the country. What works in New York City for example might not work in New Jersey or Virginia. Regardless, the underlying (progressive) principles would remain the same concerns for community, which exist in foundational American texts.

    This approach increases the appeal to voters while continuing to expand coalitions, and actually is why these organizations must support competitive elections and fair maps once the recent gerrymandering surge has subsided (see, e.g., these or these).

    These together increase the chance that organizations are less likely to get lost in litmus-tests, which are often a proxy for party over principle, and more likely to have repeated and regular success. These moreover could encourage candidates to connect with their constituents through progressive principles rather than political party.

    Indivisible has brought hope to many of us, which was actually the best part of the recent No Kings marches. Standing among the thousands in Grant Park, I was reassured that so many people shared these concerns and aspirations and care about Chicago and our country.

    Perhaps that explains why I’m concerned about its seemingly unrealistic and unresponsive language. Instead, I urge it to avoid criticizing political parties, and risk reinforcing existing divisions, and instead refocus on creating the largest coalition, one of we the people that was central to who some imagined we could be, a people who were in this fight together, still trying to form a more perfect union.

    That is what Indivisible has done so well, and what it does best.

  • Hands Off and On

    To My Elected Officials and Other Members of Congress:

    I was one of thousands in Chicago, and millions across the country, who spent Saturday afternoon sending a message.

    This message to the Trump administration was that we’ve already had enough, and that we’re prepared to stand for the preservation of our political principles and values. Many more of us didn’t vote for you than those who did, and we insist upon being counted.

    And to our elected officials, it was that we will support efforts to resist this widespread dismantling of American ideals, and that we expect you to stand in front of, and lead, us. You can count on us, but we must be able to count on you. Anything less is unacceptable.

    That is in fact what democracy looks like.

    A Concerned Constituent and Fellow Citizen

  • Holding Hope

    Last week affirmed an uncomfortable reality: more American voters chose an insurrection instigator to lead us.

    People can legitimately disagree I believe over legislative intervention for example or judicial activism. At the same time, they need some shared principles, such as the belief that convicted criminals are unfit for public office.

    Other politicians have committed crimes. Propaganda especially today can be convincing, or at least challenging.

    At the same time, everyone had access to the facts. Multiple officials, including the person whom he selected to be his senior military advisor, and the highest ranking military member, warned us that he is a fascist.

    As a result, the next four years will be a regular reminder that some, including his Republican enablers, are willing to reject accountability and other shared political principles. This reality represents a challenge to American democracy.

    Now isn’t the first time I realize that these principles have been challenged, or that such inconsistencies were acknowledged. Such conditions have existed since the founding of the United States when for example only some, and not all, people were considered equal.

    The lack of progress is perhaps more discouraging. Even more alarming could be the effects of outcome, such as withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement, which endangers our future existence, or pardoning the Silk Road founder and other convicted criminals, which reinforces the racial biases in the legal system.

    Regardless, hope can be found beyond our borders. South Korea for instance finally arrested and later indicted its president, who initially resisted such efforts and others.

    This situation is most likely messier than it might seem, but it illustrates that accountability despite its absence here is still possible. Some in other words still insist upon foundational democratic principles, which given the political differences might make this message even more heartening.

    Liberals must find better leaders. These leaders must be people who can convincingly and consistently challenge these conditions and all others that threaten the narrative of the United States both at home and abroad and who can call for basic political principles articulated in foundational documents and landmark rulings.

    Until then, we must hold onto hope wherever we can find it.