Bill Scher is a contributing editor to Politico Magazine, and co-host of the Bloggingheads.tv show “The DMZ.”

Liberals had a big success this week. What could have been a purely demoralizing inaugural weekend for Blue America instead ended with a shot in the arm, as the Women’s March exceeded all expectations—and the inauguration itself—with as many as 4.7 million people estimated to have participated in events across the 50 states. Not a shabby way to begin “The Resistance”—and a sure sign that liberals should be able to mobilize effectively in opposition to Trump in the coming years.

That is, if they don’t lose their minds first. The Women’s March might have been a success in the broader sense, but the past week has also seen liberals behaving in ways that will only hurt their cause—from egging on violence to squabbling over who belongs in their movement to dropping F-bombs on live TV. If the bad starts to overshadow the good, the much-hyped resistance movement will end up being little more than an annoying mosquito in Donald Trump’s ear, one that he will be all too happy to squash.


So before the progressive movement declares that it has a fully assembled Tea Party of its own, poised to neutralize Trump and take back Congress in 2018, it should pause and think hard about how best to build on this weekend’s success and how to avoid potential pitfalls. Here are six lessons learned:



1. Don’t Encourage Nazi-Punchers, Window-Smashers and Limo-Arsonists

Before the powerfully peaceful Women’s Marches on Saturday, we saw the horrible Inauguration Day riots orchestrated by the the completely separate anarcho-leftist group named Disrupt J20. Vowing, but failing, to disrupt the swearing-in itself, J20 and its hangers-on attacked corporate symbols, smashed storefront windows and even set a limousine aflame. More than 200 were arrested.

These crimes were committed by a small group of people who are not remotely representative of American liberalism. But some liberals unwittingly encouraged them when they shared online video of one J20 member elbowing notorious white nationalist Richard Spencer in the face.

The group eagerly took credit via Natasha Lennard, who participated in the protests and then wrote about it for The Nation in a piece titled, “Neo-Nazi Richard Spencer Got Punched—You Can Thank the Black Bloc.” The “black bloc,” she explains, is a “confrontational united force” within J20 “uniformed in black and anonymized for security.” “I don’t know who threw the punch,” she writes, “but I know by his unofficial uniform that this was a member of our black bloc that day.” She called black bloc tactics a “precondition for mob violence” which is “only a problem if you think there are no righteous mobs.” She further urged, “[Our actions won’t] appear threatening unless followed up again and again with unrelenting force.”

I doubt many will agree with her. But it only takes a few more to commit worse crimes that may hurt innocents, give Russia propaganda material to claim America is in chaos, hand Trump a perfect political foil and squander any progressive momentum. “Our job is not to make life more comfortable for the rioter, the looter, or the violent disrupter,” the White House website now reads. Sharing the punch video may seem like harmless schadenfreude-ish fun, but you were giving free advertising to the black bloc—and making it easier for Trump to portray all opposition as illegitimate.

Moral of the story: Watch what you share.

2. Relax, It’s OK to Have a “Women’s” March

One of the controversies in the run-up to the Women’s March was whether it should be called a “women’s” march. When the Washington Post flagged that few of the 175,000 people who had registered on Facebook were men, liberal New York Magazine writer Jonathan Chait surmised on Twitter, “I think many men assume the ‘Women’s March’ is supposed to be women-only, which is why it was a bad name for the main anti-Trump march.” After parrying back criticisms, he assured he was supportive of the march, but couldn’t help adding in a little snark: “For men misinformed by its poorly-chosen name, the Women's March is for ALL anti-Trump Americans. Please attend!”

Turns out that most people don’t register on Facebook before attending a protest. Men, many wearing hand-knit in the USA pink “pussyhats,” were amply represented among the millions of marchers.

The origin of the controversy is an understandable one. Trump resisters want their movement to be as big as possible, not only in terms of numbers, but also in terms of issues, be they social or economic in nature. At the end of the day, if the Resistance doesn’t help attract more voters than last time, it’s a failure. On the surface, a “women’s” march seemed exclusionary.

But all-things-to-all-people thinking can lead to mushy messaging. A passionate movement needs a nerve to strike. And the rawest nerve still throbs because a man just defeated the first major-party female nominee after being caught bragging about grabbing women’s genitalia, crudely mocking his opponent’s appearance and complaining that “the women get it better than we do.” Many don’t just take the fortifying of the glass ceiling personally, but also fear for its policy implications.

March leaders wanted a show of strength to warn Republican policymakers not to re-open old, settled battles of the culture war, and to show Democrats that the zero-sum “Sister Souljah” approach of wooing white male voters by downplaying struggles of women and minorities won’t fly in 21st-century America. They succeeded beyond measure.

Moral of the story: Ignore the naysayers.



3. Celebrities Are Fine … If You Vet Their Speeches

Matt Lewis, the #NeverTrump conservative writer for The Daily Beast (and my “DMZ” co-host on Bloggingheads.tv) was aghast at Madonna’s politically incorrect F-bombs and glib suggestion that she thought about, but discounted, “blowing up the White House.” He concluded, “The more Hollywood liberals produce condescending videos, the more pretentious and preachy celebs like Madonna … lecture us at rallies and awards ceremonies … the more I find myself liking Donald Trump.” Hashtag: #ThisIsWhyTrumpWon.

Madonna’s speech was dumb. It clanged against the “love trumps hate” theme of the day, even if in the end the massive size of the marches overshadowed all. Other celebrities had additional embarrassing off-stage march-related episodes: Shia LaBeouf looked insane as he screamed “He will not divide us!” at a white nationalist interfering with his 24-7 anti-Trump livestream. And an imbibing Chelsea Handler said to a post-march interviewer that she wouldn’t book Melania Trump on her show because, “She can barely speak English.”

But even though tagging liberal elitist celebrities as “why Trump won” is still in vogue, let’s get real: There are only two show-business professionals who have become president of the United States of America. Both are Republicans and one is in the White House right now.

Conservatives are more than happy to embrace Clint Eastwood and Scott Baio at the Republican National Convention, or sing along with Ted Nugent and Victoria Jackson. And the more offensive and condescending their commentary, the better—witness Nugent just two days before the election at a Trump rally, grabbing his crotch and growling, “I’ve got your blue state right here. Black and blue.” (Lewis knows this all too well, having once written, “My party worships lame celebrities.”)

Both sides of the red-blue culture have their celebrities, and always will. They attract media attention, and as a certain presidential occupant can tell you, that’s at least half the ballgame.

Back in February 2003, actress Janeane Garofalo (full disclosure: the co-writer of the foreword for a book I wrote) was one of the leading spokespeople against invading Iraq. Toward the end of one Fox News appearance, in which she was deftly debunking everything that was thrown at her, Brian Kilmeade gave up trying to win on the facts, and tried to knock her down a peg. She owned him:

Kilmeade: “I’m not going to let you sit there and get off because you’re a celebrity.”

Garofalo: “What does my occupation have to do with anything?”

Kilmeade: “That’s the only reason why you’re here.”

Garofalo: “Exactly. So why don’t you book somebody you have more respect for in the anti-war movement? I didn’t book myself.”

Garofalo could get on TV when others couldn’t, and that will always be true of celebrities. Garofalo, however, took the role of anti-war movement spokesperson seriously. She versed herself in the issues and handled the debate as well as any other talking head could, if not better. Unlike the other celebrity examples above, she delivered the argument her supporters wanted her to deliver, and did not self-indulgently go rogue. Of course, no amount of punditry, or protest (of which there were many), can stop a president committed to war. But her tour of celebrity-activist duty is a model to replicate.

Moral of the story: Only use celebrities you can trust.

4. “Intersectionality” is Essential … Just Stop Talking About It So Much

The other major pre-march controversy was the debate over the march was properly inclusive of people of color and their specific concerns. The initial organizer, Bob Bland, is white, which set off alarms within a feminist movement wracked with simmering complaints that its leadership has long failed to be “intersectional”—as in, recognizing that women who are simultaneously members of other oppressed groups face more daunting forms of discrimination and fully incorporating their voices into feminist thought and action. Bland quickly assembled a diverse team to share leadership roles. But a subsequent “diversity statement” called on “white women who are engaged in this effort [to] understand their privilege,” prompting some whites to complain they were being unfairly maligned.

A New York Times expose into the tense squabbles was followed by the usual guffaws about leftist purity tests and circular firing squads. “HILARIOUS: White Leftist Women Protesters Learn That Black Leftist Women Protesters Hate Them,” chortled conservative Ben Shapiro of the Daily Wire. “Women’s March Morphs into Intersectional Torture Chamber,” crowed National Review’s Heather Wilhelm.

However, this airing of dirty laundry helped it get washed. In the end, progressives of all backgrounds in all 50 states were thrilled to get behind a march led by a multicultural team of rising star organizers. Marches in both big blue states and smaller red state cities were far more reflective of the diversity of the country than the inaugural. Plenty of largely white liberal enclaves reported strong turnouts as well.

But another Shapiro cheap shot contained a constructive warning: “Perhaps we can thank Trump for demonstrating to the left that their fellows aren’t as interested in warring against conservatism as they are warring against members of all out-groups to which they don’t belong.”

In fact, the Women’s March explicitly was not billed as an anti-Trump march (even if most marchers assumed otherwise and the post-inaugural scheduling implicitly sent that message.) The march principles were a vague checklist of progressive values, and top organizer Linda Sarsour on MSNBC credited that approach for the large turnout: “People found an entry point. It was not just about reproductive rights. It was about climate justice and racial justice and immigrant rights.” Considering that there was no singular policy the march aimed to enact or block, organizers sometimes seem more interested in resolving the tensions within the feminist movement, and progressive movement generally, than in combating Trump and his agenda. That’s OK. Unifying a fractured progressive base was a necessary first step in “The Resistance.” But too much emphasis on it will lapse into navel-gazing when there’s other work to be done. In any event, “intersectionality” is literally an academic term. This is not an academic time. A resistance needs to get out of the ivory tower and into the political trenches. So, yeah, try to bring everybody along. But don’t expect to connect with Trump voters by quoting Foucault and abstract feminist theory.

Moral of the story: Just do it. Don’t always talk about it.

5. Don’t Give Activists Meaningless Busy Work

March leaders know full well that the march was only a beginning, and that the mass outpouring in the streets for a march with no stated policy objectives needs to be followed up with concrete political actions. But early signs are not encouraging that the organizers know how to do that.

A promise for “10 Actions in 100 Days” began with an almost literal back-of-the-envelope idea: “Write a postcard to your Senators about what matters most to you.” This is decentralized, bottom-up organizing at its worst. A bunch of postcards about a thousand different issues is meaningless busywork that will produce some polite form letters ghostwritten by Senate interns and little else.

What’s needed is a discrete political goal that can channel progressive energy, exploit a Trump vulnerability, sap his political capital and stifle his agenda. The most recent model of success is 2005, when scrappy Democrats stood up to a cocky President George W. Bush at the start of his second term and stymied his attempt to partially privatize Social Security.

The difficulty in focusing on a single action is getting everyone to agree to do the same thing. The Women’s March leaders are one small group of many progressive activist organizations, from MoveOn.org to the American Civil Liberties Union, all looking for their own angle.

But I’d suggest the obvious target for a big win is the already faltering attempt to repeal Obamacare: Republicans are clearly out on a limb, having made promises they can’t easily keep. Democrats are eager to protect what they can of Obama’s legacy. The program encapsulates issues that appeal to both economic populists (corporate profiteering), people of color (racial health disparities) and feminists (access to contraception).

Plus, a grassroots effort is already underway. Several “Our First Stand” rallies led by Sen. Bernie Sanders and other Democratic senators were held a week before the Women’s March. And many angry and anxious Obamacare supporters in Colorado came to see Republican Rep. Mike Coffman for a scheduled series of one-on-one chats that Coffman left before seeing all of them. The next round of congressional town halls might be similarly overrun by constituent demands to leave Obamacare alone. The momentum is clear. Why start from scratch when you can join forces?

Moral of the story: Organizers need to get organized.

6. Don’t Play Trump’s Game. Stick to the Issues

Besting Trump on crowds was fun, and an important morale boost for the left. “Took us 5 years to get numbers this big against G.W. Bush. Only 24 hours against Trump,” tweeted CNN’s Van Jones. And there is no question that the huge crowd sizes got under Trump’s skin, compelling his team to brazenly lie about his own crowds during his first days in office. But before you spend all week hammering Trump and his lackeys for their lies, remember: Trump thrives on these nonsensical fights.

As Italian-born professor Luigi Zingales explained in a New York Times op-ed, Trump’s style is analogous to former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who drove his opponents mad with his outlandish behavior. But what ultimately defeated him was treating him like a normal politician, not a freakshow. “[The opposition] was so rabidly obsessed with his personality that any substantive political debate disappeared; it focused only on personal attacks, the effect of which was to increase Mr. Berlusconi’s popularity,” Zingales noted. “Only two men in Italy have won an electoral competition against Mr. Berlusconi [and they] focused on the issues, not on his character.”

As for Trump, sure, beat him on crowds. But hold him accountable for delivering on his promises to the American people. Voters knew he was a carnival barker; they picked him anyway. The way to beat him is not to keep saying he’s a bad guy—it’s to prove that his crackpot ideas just don’t work.

Moral of the story: Focus on the issues, pick the right battles … and don’t let any celebrities punch Nazis.