Category: language

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Branding, Business Ethics, Business-general, Copywriting, Corporate Social Responsibility, Eco-friendly, Energy & Sustainability, Entrepreneurship, Environment, Green Business, Innovation, language, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Other, People Helping People, poverty, Psychology, Shel's Personal Life, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , ,

Every year, bestselling author and social media visionary Chris Brogan challenges his huge reader base to come up with three words to provide focus for the coming year. This year, I decided to take the challenge for the first time since 2016. And this time, I’m going to emblazon them on a printout in huge type, and post it where I can see my words every day.  My three words are:

  1. Clarity
  2. Justice
  3. Healing

Clarity

The first three lines of an eye chart
I’ll discuss Justice in Part 2 (with lots of links(), and Healing–including  a deeply personal experience that happened to me this month–in Part 3.eye chart reminds me of having clarity in this year of 20//20 Clarity, 2020 AD

The year 2020 reminds me of 20/20 vision: seeing with perfect clarity. While I don’t expect to achieve perfect clarity, even with the new glasses I’ve just been prescribed ;-), I do want to focus on seeing and acting as clearly as possible.

It’s been several years since I changed the focus of my business toward helping other businesses (and other types of organizations such as nonprofits) find the sweet spot where profitability intersects with environmental and social good.

I now market myself as the person who can help any organization discover opportunities to do go in the world by creating, identifying and re-purposing, and/or marketing profitable products and services that turn hunger and poverty into abundance, war into peace, and catastrophic climate change into planetary balance.

I’ve gotten a lot clearer in my messaging since starting this quest in the summer of 2013, since giving my TEDx talk in 2014, and even since publishing my 10th book, Guerrilla Marketing to Heal the World, in 2016 (which Chris Brogan endorsed, along with Seth Godin, Jack Canfield, and many others).

But I’m still nowhere near as clear as I need to be about:

  • Who wants to pay me to do this work?
  • Which services they most want, and to achieve what goals?
  • How to set a price structure that’s fair both to solopreneurs and large corporations? 
  • Who do I most want to serve?

I’m beginning to figure out the answers. I’ve settled on pricing based on the size of the organization, which seems reasonably fair because larger organizations are more complex and therefore a task such as a marketing plan our outlining a product development campaign will take a lot more of my time–but I’m not sure I’ve got all the bugs worked out yet. I’ve realized that I’d rather work with small entities than large ones, but I am very open to being farmed out by a larger entity to their smaller customers, suppliers, or business units–and to the larger entities sponsoring me in other ways, such as funding my speaking to organizations that can’t otherwise afford me.

Hopefully, seeing that message of clarity on the wall of my workspace every day will inspire me to figure all this out, and to make my message so clear that everyone understands exactly how I can help and why it’s important.

 

I’ll discuss Justice in Part 2 (with lots of links), and Healing–including  a deeply personal experience that happened to me this month–in Part 3.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Advertising, Branding, Business-general, Consumer Issues, Greenwashing, language, localism/locavore, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Psychology, Shel's Personal Life, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , ,

Nostalgiawashing: pretending that you represent the “good old days” of small-town, small-business artisanship while actually running a large, highly mechanized operation.

Although I just invented the term (zero relevant hits on Google), nostalgiawashing’s been a thing for decades. Think about Jack Daniels or Pepperidge Farm. Or nostalgia-driven experience-based companies like Cracker Barrell and even Disney. (Disney is a bit schizophrenic on this, because it markets both nostalgia (for example, Main Street, USA) and its opposite, which I’ll call “tomorrowism” (for example, Epcot). All these companies try to bring us back to a simpler era, when nearly all the figures of authority were straight, white, middle-aged, able-bodied Christian men, and when the upper class could mostly avoid contact with the “masses yearning to breathe free”: immigrants and locally-born alike in the lower classes. Of course, that era never actually existed!

I’m not going on the warpath to eliminate nostalgia-based marketing, even when I think it’s deceptive enough to be called nostalgiawashing. But at least don”t insult our intelligence with it!

This is inspired by a mailing that did insult my intelligence. It was a card that offered “warm winter wishes” on the outside and then offered me a discount on replacement windows and “one of my favorite holiday recipes” (included on a separate index card). I have been a customer, getting replacement patio doors from them a few years ago, so I’ll give them credit for at least keeping in contact. Here’s why it didn’t work:Four-piece mailing from the window company

  • The envelope used a very nice handwriting font, but a return address sticker without a name, just an address…a first-class presort stamp and a sprayed-on barcode. It wasn’t difficult to figure out that this was bulk mail, though I thought it was from a charity.
  • The card is in a different handwriting font, even though it purports to be from the same person who addressed it. And they even positioned the text so it slants up the page–but uniformly on every line??? Come on, people, do you really think you’re fooling anyone?
  • I understand why the recipe card, on what pretends to be an old-fashioned index card, uses yet a third handwriting font–because, of course, the manager’s “Aunt Amy” wrote it. But at the end of the second side (not shown), it has a copyright notice in the name of the company. And the recipe itself is something I personally found disgusting. I can’t imagine wanting to make a dessert out of a whole sleeve of saltines, and Heath bar bits.

Of course, I don’t happen to be in the market for new windows anyway. Even if the mailer had been brilliant, I don’t need what they’re selling. But if they were a client of mine, I would have not only used a completely different approach, but recognized that not a lot of previous customers necessarily need four more windows right now and provided incentives for referrals.

 

 

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, censorship, Diversity, Eco-friendly, General Commentary, Gratitude, Green Living/Green Lifestyles, language, Psychology, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , ,

Guest post by Seth Godin, 

Seth Godin. Photo by Jill Greenberg. Courtesy of Seth Godin.
Seth Godin. Photo by Jill Greenberg. Courtesy of Seth Godin.

reprinted with his permission. Originally published on his blog under the title, “‘Not good enough’ is an easy place to hide“

 

Sniffing at the others who care is a form of virtue signalling. It’s also an ineffective way to create real change.

“My Prius Hybrid gets 140 miles per gallon.”

“My Tesla is solar powered.”

“Really, well I take an electric scooter.”

“We carpool by sharing a horse.”

“A horse? You should walk!”

This misses the real problem: The 1998 Chevy Suburban, with just one person on board, doing a forty-mile commute at 12 miles per gallon.

The same goes for ranking elected officials on who is the most perfect on the issue we care about.

The people who are paying attention are the ones who are trying. And shaming people who are trying because they’re not perfect is a terrific way to discourage them from trying. On the other hand, the core of every system is filled with the status quo, a status quo that isn’t even paying attention.

Focusing the group’s energy on shutting down stripped-mine coal is going to make far more impact than scolding the few who are trying.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Diversity, Eco-friendly, Environment, Ethics: General, Gratitude, language, People Helping People, Politics, propaganda, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

One of my marketing buddies, Marisa Murgatroyd, posted a picture of Greta Thunberg along with an inspirational message about how Greta’s work empowered Marisa to find her own place to make change.

Greta Thunberg on the cover of GQ, with commentary by Marisa Murgatroyd (Instagram screenshot)

It attracted a lot of comments, many of them expressing thanks for a great post–but others, far too many, dissing Greta and her work. Here’s my comment, in italics.

Thanks, Marisa, for posting this. Shocking how many people are posting to tear this young woman down because she’s changing the world. She will probably grow out of her extremism but if the world is lucky, she will keep her passion. I ask every person who is putting Greta down: what have you done in HER lifetime to make the world better, and what are you doing now toward that goal? Why is it important to you to spend your good energy attacking someone who is making a difference in the only ways she knows how?

And before you attack ME for using the word, “extremism,” remember this:

  1. This was a response to people who see her as an extremist. I used their own talking point to perhaps be listened to–to increase the chances that I might change a mind or two.
  2. Greta is acting out of deep despair. She does sound extreme at times. But let’s remember how hard it is to act out of despair, even if you don’t have Asperger’s (as she does). Positive motivators tend to work much better. To act from a dark place in a positive way is itself remarkable. In time, she will learn (as I did) that the world can be a very positive place, and we get the fun job of making it more positive, harnessing and amplifying the trends in the good directions, doing our best to neutralize the haters and the planet-killers. And that while the pace may seem glacial, we are actually winning.
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in General Commentary, Gratitude, language, People Helping People, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , ,

Guest post by Jacqueline Simonds.

Way back in 1979, I worked in a Texas bar & grill. One of my co-workers discovered she had Graves Disease/hyperthyroidism. She was put on a medication and her slightly bulging eyes and weight started to diminish.

Then she discovered she was pregnant.

[Recall that in 1979, there were no home pregnancy tests available. By the time she figured out she might be pregnant, and got into the doctor, she was maybe 2 – 2.5- months along. That’s 6 – 8.5 weeks.]

She told the doctor who was treating the thyroid, and he freaked. The medication she was taking would 100% result in a mangled fetus. He insisted she get an abortion – for the sake of her health, and her family.

My friend, a Latina, was also very very Catholic, and already had 3 children with her husband. This caused a terrible crisis for her. So she went to her priest, and told him what the doctor said. He immediately told her she couldn’t have the procedure, because it was against God.

My friend was completely wrecked by the moral and ethical challenges before her. What should she do? She understood the danger, but the priest said it was wrong. She cried all day at work.

She called her doctor and told him what the priest said. Then the doctor did something sort of amazing.

He called the priest and asked him to come to the office.

When they met, the doctor explained what was happening in my friend’s body. He showed the priest pictures of what a healthy developing fetus looked like, and what would happen to this one. And then he described, in great detail, the life my friend and her family would have. That my friend would have to quit work, and take full care of the child, for the rest of its life (caring for a medically-challenged child was even more financially and emotionally draining then than it is now).

But more, the doctor said, is that it might just kill her. Then her 3 children would be left without a mother, her husband without a wife, the parish without a devout member. And how did this serve God? How, he asked the priest, can you help her best? (He did not demand that the priest give in to the doctor’s way of thinking.)

The priest was astonished at all this information, and asked for time to go and pray. The doctor told him he encouraged him to do so, but not to take too much more time. The procedure had to be done soon.

The next day, the priest called my friend and told her he felt God wanted her to lay down the burden of the pregnancy, and that the priest himself would take her to the procedure.

And he did. And she was saved.

My friend suffered guilt and remorse and sorrow on a scale I could barely stand to watch. But with all of our love, she got through it.

If the conversation between the priest and the doctor seems unlikely to you, it is because times have changed that radically. We were on the middle path back in the 70s, where you could object to abortion, but see its necessity. When you could be pro-choice, but have an adult conversation that didn’t involve a screaming match – and therefore might change a mind.

Extremism erases rationality and damages real people. Right now, we HAVE to fight right wing pseudo-Christian extremism, because it is a toxic poison to women’s bodily autonomy. Once we can force the extremists back into the shadows, we can return to a time of the middle path, where your decision is YOURS.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Democracy, Ethics in Government, language, Politics, Psychology Tagged with , , , , , ,

Oh, for goodness sake. How much longer can we stand a United States president who has less emotional maturity than some two-year-olds?

In just the past week, this ridiculous man cancelled a meeting with Denmark’s Prime Minister because she didn’t want to sell off Greenland, accused American Jews of being disloyal if they vote Democratic, and retweeted someone who compared him to “The Second Coming of God”and a king.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen (2019).

Last month, he told three Democratic Congresswomen of color who were born here and one who has been in the US longer than his own wife to go back to the “corrupt” countries they were from.

And of course, we’ve experienced hundreds of similar temper tantrums going back throughout this chaotic self-dealing administration, into the campaign, and even years before that. He betrays allies, cozies up to dictators, breaks treaties and agreements, attempts to grab unlimited power, and pouts very publicly when he doesn’t get his way. He seems unable to even make a sympathy call without trying to make it all about him.

In a private citizen, this level of immaturity might be amusing. But in the “leader of the Free World,” it’s downright scary. You don’t want to see tantrums in a man who has access to nuclear weapons!

Even the Republicans ought to have had enough long ago. Do they think that kowtowing will advance their agenda? Appeasement didn’t work for Neville Chamberlain against Hitler, and it isn’t working for the American people either.

Congress, do your duty! You’ve had cause to impeach since the day he took office while still violating the Emoluments Clauses, and he keeps building new reasons to impeach. If you don’t like that route, how about the 25th Amendment, Section 4 of which provides for removal for incompetence/insanity/inability to carry out duties of office?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in language, media-general, Politics, propaganda, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice, Uncategorized Tagged with ,

Seth Godin. Photo by Jill Greenberg. Courtesy of Seth Godin.
Seth Godin. Photo by Jill Greenberg. Courtesy of Seth Godin.

Editor’s Note from Shel Horowitz: this was originally published on Seth’s blog under the title, Where Will the Media Take Us Next? I am a long-time reader and fan of author and teacher Seth’s daily blog (and thrilled that he gave me a terrific endorsement for my 10th book, Guerrilla Marketing to Heal the World). I have often linked to his blog posts on Facebook, and sometimes corresponded with him. This one struck me as one I wanted to share on my own website. Used with his permission. And now, here’s Seth.

Where Will the Media Take Us, by Seth Godin

Since the first story was carved on a rock, media pundits have explained that they have simply given people what they want, reporting the best they can on what’s happening.
Cause (the culture, human activity, people’s desires) leads to effect (front page news).

In fact, it’s becoming ever more clear that the attention-seeking, profit-driven media industrial complex drives our culture even more than it reports on it.

Thoughtful people regularly bemoan our loss of civility, the rise of trolling and bullying and most of all, divisive behavior designed to rip people apart instead of moving us productively forward.

And at the very same time, reality TV gets ever better ratings. So much so that the news has become the longest-running, cheapest to produce and most corrosive TV show in history. Increase that exponentially by adding in the peer-to-peer reality show that is social media, and you can see what’s happening.

Imagine two classrooms, each filled with second graders.
In the first classroom, the teacher shines a spotlight on the bullies, the troublemakers and the fighters, going so far as to arrange all the chairs so that the students are watching them and cheering them on all day.

In the second classroom, the teacher establishes standards, acts as a damper on selfish outliers and celebrates the generous and productive kids in the classroom…

How will the classrooms diverge? Which one would you rather have your child enrolled in?

We’re not in elementary school anymore, and the media isn’t our teacher or our nanny. But the attention we pay to the electronic channels we click on consumes more of our day than we ever spent with Miss Binder in second grade. And that attention is corrosive. To us and to those around us.

The producers of reality TV know this. And they seek out more of it. When they can’t find it easily, they search harder. Because that’s their job.

It’s their job to amp up the reality show that is our culture.
But it’s not our job to buy into it. More than anything, profit-driven media needs our active participation in order to pay their bills.

It’s an asymmetrical game, with tons of behavioral research working against each of us–the uncoordinated but disaffected masses. Perhaps we can find the resolve to seek out the others, to connect and to organize in a direction that actually works.

The first step is to stop taking the bait. The second step is to say, “follow me.”

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Ethics: General, language, Networking, People Helping People, Politics, propaganda, Psychology, Shel's Personal Life, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , , ,

This thought-provoking and mercifully brief article in the Atlantic explains why DT fanatics refuse to face his evil.

Go and read it. I’ll wait. And yes, I know it’s almost a year old–but it’s still completely relevant.

It makes so much sense to me! It’s not that DT’s ardent followers can’t see the criminal behavior, the looting of the public treasury, the constant lying and bullying, the attempt to accuse someone else of whatever it is he’s accused of today. It’s that they define corruption very differently than the rest of us to.

Of course, if this is accurate, it poses a big challenge for activists. When facts don’t matter at all because ideology is paramount, it’s really hard to change people’s minds. 

I think it can be done, one conversation at a time. And those conversations have to be handled very carefully. They have to:

  • Respect the other person as a person (that means no name calling, among other things)
  • Seek common ground even when it’s hard to find
  • Avoid making the other person feel diminished, stupid, heartless, etc. and at the same time, not condoning the diminishment or insult of others (in the form of prejudice

This is a huge challenge. I recognize that. I’ve had some of these conversations. Van Jones has had some.

Van Jones, activist, speaking in 2015. Photo Credit: Department of Labor, Shawn T Moore

I’m deeply inspired by groups that facilitate dialogue between groups of peope who are opposite sides of deep divides. That could be Better Angels bringing together Left and Right in the US–or Combatants for Peace bringing Israeli and Palestinian former combatants together on speaking tours. Or dozens of other groups.

How do you find hope and opportunity while in dialogue with people you ardently disagree with? Please post in the comments.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Demographics/Psychographics, language, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Marketing Trends/News, Media Ethics, media-general, Politics, propaganda, Psychology Tagged with
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts

I’m a big fan of Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. She’s been my Senator for more than six years, and I was aware of her consumer advocacy for several years before that. In the crowded field of Democrats seeking the presidency, she’s my top choice.

BUT I still think she made a big mistake turning down a chance to broadcast a Town Hall meeting on Fox news.

I’ve been puzzling about this for almost two weeks, looking for something fresh to say that hasn’t been said before, as in this article by Megan Day:

In Warren’s scenario, Fox News’s politics will be defeated by a few principled liberal politicians engaging in a media blackout. In [Bernie] Sanders’s, Fox News’s politics will be defeated when the Left convinces a significant portion of the Right’s working-class base that they’ve been duped, and that the pro-worker left best represents their political interests...

By refusing to go on Fox News, Warren has demonstrated that she doesn’t take this task as seriously as she ought to. As Sanders has plainly stated, the power of the capitalist class is so formidable that it will take a huge movement of millions of united workers to actually overcome it in reality. Warren’s policy ideas are frequently excellent, but without a fundamental orientation toward the very people who stand to benefit from them, they stand little chance of materializing.

I agree with  Day. Warren’s better policy initiatives are not enough if she’s going to rely on the liberal elite to make them a reality.

And she should know this. She’s a born organizer, and her speeches are very approachable. Like that guy in the White House, she understands how to talk to ordinary people with in some cases limited education, to make them feel excited by (and ownership of) her ideas.

Yes, Fox is toxic. But when people have swallowed poison, you go in and pump their stomachs. The argument she makes that she doesn’t want to enrich the network or legitimize it seems spurious. After all, Bernie Sanders attacked Fox during the Town Hall they gave him and televised.

And then it hit me that my own start in journalism was very relevant.

In 1972, as a 15-year-old junior at Bronx High School of Science, I got my first article bylines–covering peace demonstrations and other progressive events. I didn’t get them in the official school newspaper; writing for Science Survey was only an option for the students in the honors journalism English class.

I got them in one of the school’s underground papers. A paper called Insight, published by a small group of right-wingers who identified as libertarians. They ran my stuff with disclaimers: “the following article does not reflect the views of the management,” etc.

But they ran my stuff! I was able to share my viewpoint, encourage the peace and environmental agendas of groups I was involved with, and build a publication portfolio that led to a 45-year writing career and the authorship of 10 books and thousands of articles.

And even at the time, I felt that maybe the best part was that they put me in front of an audience that was skeptical of my views. They gave me a forum to reach people who disagreed with me. I have no idea if I changed anyone’s mind, but I was given that chance.

Elizabeth should have taken that chance, too.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Environment, Ethics in Government, language, Politics, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , ,

I recognize the political difficulties of impeaching with a hostile Senate. Until the Republicans–as they did when Nixon was president–find their outrage, impeachment will fail in the Senate, and removal for incompetence under the 25th Amendment will fail in the Cabinet.

However, what the mainstream Dems continue to ignore is the political cost of NOT impeaching–and the political opportunities in calling out the GOP hypocrisy.

Marching to Impeach the 45th President
Marching to Impeach the 45th President

Yes, I know: the failed impeachment of Bill Clinton came back to bite the Republicans, hard. But the situation with Bill Clinton is not analogous, because Clinton’s trial was caught up in lying about one incident that had nothing to do with the way he governed, and the whole country knew it was a railroading. This does not excuse Clinton’s consistently icky behavior nor his lying about it–and if the Republicans had been smarter, they would have gone after stuff like the pay-to-play scandal that involved donations to the Clinton’s foundation. That really was a corrupt and impeachable offense. Lying about Lewinsky seems pretty tame by comparison.

But all of those moral guardians who were so quick to impeach back then are strangely silent about a man who stole the election, lied at least 9451 times since taking office (as of April 3, 2019), reeks of financial corruption, has been accused by 20-some women of sexual misbehavior (let’s remember that Clinton’s Lewinsky lie was about a CONSENSUAL act, although the original impeachment investigation that turned up that story came out of allegations of harassment that deserved a full investigation), has no idea how to govern, engages in hate speech constantly, has destroyed important ally relationships, and oh, yes, colluded with at least one foreign government.

How the Democrats Can Capture the Conversation

The Democrats have a moment to seize. This is our time to hammer home the idea that a crooked, venal, incompetent president in service to foreign powers and big corporations has no right to be in office, and the Separation of Powers principle gives Congress a moral obligation to enforce our right to a better government.

Just as Republicans were so quick to pillory Hillary Clinton for using private email servers (just as her Republican AND Democratic predecessors did), beating this message into our heads until it became part of the culture, so the Democrats must make reining in the runaway criminal in the White House part of the culture. And, considering that several key members of the current administration have also used private email servers–and, unlike Hillary, they can’t plead ignorance or precedent–hold these same Republicans accountable for their sudden strange silence when it’s a Republican who gets caught,

John Bonifaz and others have identified at least 10 different categories of impeachable offenses. Any one of these would justify starting impeachment proceedings. All 10 at once make it imperative.

The Democrats have to follow through on that moral obligation. Their messaging needs to focus on such talking points as:

  • The threat to our democracy, to our very Republic, from a president who is beholden not to the American people but to his corporate pals (Koch Brothers in particular) and foreign governments–not just Russia, but Saudi Arabia and Israel, at least, plus cozying up to dictators in places like North Korea and the Philippines.
  • The sheer magnitude of corruption oozing from DT and many of his past and present cabinet members, unprecedented even in the “swamp” of Washington
  • The scary parallels between DT’s patterns of speech and action (including his un-American demand for unquestioned loyalty, attacks on the judiciary/press/racial, religious, and cultural minorities, threats of violence, to name just a few) and the dictators who have risen as our enemies: Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein–and thus, our patriotic duty to remove this man from power before he turns the country into a fascist dictatorship (interestingly, in researching these connections, I came across DT’s repeated passionate defense of Saddam and Libyan strongman Kadhafi during the 2016 campaign)–much as he has continued to defend other of dictators, including Putin, Duterte, and Kim Jong Un, among others.
  • The wisdom of our Founding Fathers in spelling out a process to determine whether a president has acted illegally, and removing that president from office if found guilty, right in the Constitution
  • Their responsibility and duty as members of Congress to the American people to protect us from these numerous criminal behaviors by upholding the Constitution

This could build on the momentum of 2018 and give people reasons to vote FOR Democrats, rather than simply against DT or Republicans in general. This is the sort of issue that can turn someone into a lifetime supporter.

Consequences of Failing to Act

OK, those are the positive motivators. Now, let’s look at the baggage Democrats will carry if they continue to let DT get away with the rampant criminality and incompetence:

  • Far too many progressives will sit out the 2020 election, feeling that the Democrats are just “Republican Lite.” (Yes, I’m intentionally using the low-calorie, low-substance advertising non-word, instead of “Light”.)
  • Democrats lose the moral high ground and lose momentum, maybe even find themselves facing a serious third-party challenge that would culminate in DT’s re-election (since we don’t have Ranked-Choice Voting in national elections in the US). This would likely hand DT a majority in the house again and set progressive politics back years, even as the climate clock is ticking.
  • The message to the Republicans will be “we don’t care enough to engage you over these crimes. Go and do whatever evil you want.”
  • Especially if re-elected, DT will be emboldened to do even more criminal acts, encourage even more race and ethnic divisiveness, stock the courts with even more extremist judges, roll back environmental and human rights protections even faster,  follow the footsteps of those dictators even more closely.

The message the Democrats must put forth is that we do care, we will hold him accountable, and we will keep the promises we made to represent everyone in the district. To get there, we progressives need to create a scenario where the Democrats see both the need to remove DT, hold him accountable for both his criminal behavior and his disastrous policies, and undo as much as possible of his anti-life, Profit Uber Alles legacy–and see the consequences to their careers and their party, as well as to the Constitution and the governed, if they fail to act.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail