The president-elect’s first term brought a wave of protest. This time, visitors to New York’s Washington Square Park are struggling for energy to resist

Summary

Anti-Trump Americans, especially on the left, are showing a more subdued response to Trump’s 2024 reelection compared to the activism of 2016.

Exhaustion, disillusionment with repeated setbacks, and negative media coverage have led many to disengage from politics or shift focus to personal priorities.

Activist groups, like Women’s March, are planning protests but acknowledge lower enthusiasm and more localized efforts.

Experts suggest this “tune-out” may be a coping mechanism, with some hoping new, non-political participants will lead change.

Many feel drained but believe activism will eventually regain momentum.

  • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
    344·
    20 hours ago

    Of course people are tuning out. Please keep in mind I am saying the following as a mostly liberal slightly libertarian.

    What has passed for liberal culture over the last decade has included an awful lot of outrage over every injustice but not an awful lot of solid action to correct those injustices. The Democratic party has tried to harness that with a lot of identity politics that avoid the real issues. And so the result is you have a ton of people who are always upset but things never get better.

    So of course people burn out. Or they get cynical and decide nothing is going to change so it’s not worth getting worked up over. You see a lot of that in this very thread.

    To anyone angry at me, downvote me if you want, but if you want change actually fucking do something. Stop consuming short form content like Twitter and TikTok, start consuming long form things that make you think and expose you to different viewpoints. Lex Friedman interviews are a good place to start.

    Understand that not everybody who disagrees with you is bad or evil or malicious.
    Very few issues are simple. There is rarely an absolute obvious right and wrong. And if somebody adopts a viewpoint you think is wrong, consider that maybe they have reasons they think it’s right and use those reasons to challenge your own beliefs. You may conclude that they are still wrong, but you must be open to the possibility that you might be wrong. If you aren’t open to being wrong, why should they be?
    And in the world where nobody can admit they are wrong, nothing productive happens. You just have two sides shouting at each other.

    Then take a step back from your own personal outrage and think about what is actually important. If you had to choose between ensuring every American has good health care, and ensuring every American has their pronouns recognized, which do you think is more important? So which one are you focusing your advocacy and speech on?

    The simple fact is, if you (and I am addressing everybody on all sides here) stop getting riled up over wedge issues and start focusing on the things that The majority of the country can agree on, you might find there’s an awfully big agenda of problems we all agree should be fixed that aren’t even being discussed.

      • Dkarma@lemmy.world
        92·
        15 hours ago

        It’s a shit take and here’s why:

        At no point in the past 30 years have the Democrats been able to do anything because of the filibuster even when they controlled both houses of Congress. The only thing that’s held us back from moving any policy to even remotely the left is the Republican obstructionism and that’s it plain and simple

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          2 hours ago

          At no point in the past 30 years have the Democrats been able to do anything because of the filibuster even when they controlled both houses of Congress.

          This excuse has always been garbage and here’s why:

          Democrats, at any point in which they controlled a simple majority of the Senate, could have closed the loophole that permits the filibuster and ended this bullshit forever.

        • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
          21·
          6 hours ago

          And to that I ask, why do the Democrats not also use the filibuster? Or when they have control of the Senate, rewrite the rules to disallow a procedural filibuster and make it so if you want to filibuster something you have to actually stand up there and read the phone book into the record for hours on end?
          If the filibuster is the problem, why is there not a large public campaign for filibuster reform?

          I’m sorry but this is an excuse plain and simple. The procedural filibuster, which I personally think should be abolished, can be used as a weapon by either side. If GOP filibusters the school spending bill, Dems should filibuster the defense spending bill. If GOP filibusters the medical care bill, Dems should filibuster the warrantless wiretapping bill (well, they should do that anyway, but you get the point).