I encourage you to do the same!
I encourage you to do the same!
I don't think that's a good investment, considering how badly those organizations failed in order to bring us to today.
They spent the four years of the Biden administration acting like a hall monitor telling other students they can't smoke in the boys' room. Like, not only can they smoke in the boys' room, they have done so repeatedly. They have upgraded from clove cigarettes to tobacco to weed to crack.
The current oligarchs of the US got there by having no shame and by not caring about the rules, because ultimately, they're just words on paper unless someone uses force (through the state's monopoly on it) to make them a reality.
For example, the (unfortunately very successful) Trump ad “Harris is for they/them, Trump is for you” ultimately originates with the ACLU. In 2019 they successfully got Harris to pledge government funding for gender affirming care for people in e.g. immigration detention [1]. It is totally insane that the ACLU thought it was important and worthwhile to get a pledge on this edge case. In general this advocacy was way out of touch with the country at large, has totally backfired, and now landed us with an anti-trans administration.
[1] question 14 here https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-rights-for-all-candidate...
But that's just one example of many. There's also, say, Biden's handling of the border. Even though in 2022 it was clearly deeply unpopular and playing right into Trump's reelection campaign, he didn't change course (until too late) because of pressure from groups like the ACLU.
Overall, IMO one of the biggest factors in Trump's reelection is that the left and the center-left _talked_ about Trump being a big problem, but were unwilling to actually alter their policies or behavior or messaging to broaden their appeal and ensure Trump lost.
> In February 2024 and again in May 2024, Republicans in the Senate blocked a bipartisan border security bill Biden had pushed for to reduce the number of migrants who can claim asylum at the border and provide more money for Customs and Border Protection officials, asylum officers, immigration judges and scanning technology at the border.[79] It also provided for thousands of work visas for migrant spouses of U.S. citizens awaiting immigrant visas, and 250,000 new visas over five years for people seeking to work in the U.S. or join family members.[80] It was negotiated in a bipartisan manner and initially looked like it had the votes to pass until Donald Trump opposed it, citing that it would boost Biden's reelection chances.
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_policy_of_the_Joe...
He had no political consequence for encouraging blocking it.
The reason Biden didn't make the executive order earlier is because of pressure from groups like the ACLU. The ACLU was simultaneously telling us that Trump is a threat but also pressuring the administration to keep pursuing policies that were clearly playing right into Trump's reelection campaign.
By the way, the ACLU was also against the border bill that Trump blocked.
The main reason Trump won in 24 because he captured the Great Lakes area. Outside of major cities, there are not large Hispanic communities in the Upper Midwest. Migration has far less of an impact there than, say, inflation. And that's what Trump campaigned on.
Now, did he cause that inflation? Partly. Does the US government have to print off money en masse in order to make up for deficits that have been made larger by three decades of GOP refusal to have an adult conversation about revenue policy? Yes.
Does that matter to the average person in the Upper Midwest? No.
It's not so much that they made people vote for Trump, but that they utterly failed to rise to the occasion, despite screaming how the stakes were so high.
I really think a lot of the so-called opposition saw Trump as a wedge to selfishly drive support towards their little ideological or personal priorities.
I think the way forward is probably to ditch finger-wagging liberal technocracy and go for a more competent, law-abiding populism, which seeks to strike a compromise that can comfortably get super-majority support (i.e. 60%+ rather than 50%+1) and speak effectively to many of the anxieties Trump harnesses. You're not going to get that by giving to special interest activist organizations.
They don't have that much money.
I think I want that on my headstone :p