If it's in the News, it's in our Polls. Public opinion polling since 2003.

 

The Women's March was a Dismal Failure and a Hopeful Sign

A Commentary By Ted Rall

Saturday, January 28, 2017

On Saturday, January 21, three times as many people attended a demonstration against Trump as showed up the day before for his inauguration. Solidarity marches across the nation drew hundreds of thousands, perhaps more.       

The turnout was impressive. It vexed the new president. But what did the Women's March mean?      

Despite what pundits said, the Women's March was not a movement. Nor was it the beginning of a movement.       

It was a moment. A show of hands: "I'm against Trump," these women (and men) told the world. Question was, who/what do they want to replace him?       

As Occupy Wall Street instigator Micah White pointed out, Women's Marchers didn't issue any demands, much less posit a desire to achieve political power. "Without a clear path from march to power, the protest is destined to be an ineffective feel-good spectacle adorned with pink hats," he warned. Like other protests of the last few decades, the Women's March was a spasm, a spontaneous expression of disgust and outrage doomed to lead nowhere.       

If you don't demand anything, how will you get it?       

If you don't pose a threat to the establishment, why should they feel scared?     

Even so, at the risk of both mansplaining and leftsplaining, a show of hands does matter. Events like the Women's March are significant because American politics is centered (pun intended) around the fiction that leftist political movements taken for granted in other nations - communism, socialism and left anarchism - have no presence at the ballot box or in the news media in the U.S. because American voters aren't interested.      

Moments like Saturday prove that's a lie.       

The New Left was the last organized left-wing mass movement in American history. Since the organized Left collapsed in the early 1970s, we've seen other moments like Saturday, indications that there are Americans whose politics fall to the left of the fake-left Democratic party and the lockstep center-right corporate media apparatus that props up it and its "rival" Republican brand.       

Even during the somnolent 1980s, hundreds of thousands showed up to protest Reagan at demonstrations like Solidarity Day. There were violent, effective eco-terrorist attacks and anti-globalization/WTO protests like the Battle of Seattle in the 1990s. Millions marched against the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This decade brought us Occupy Wall Street and Bernie Sanders' surprisingly popular presidential primary challenge.      

These political impulses -- opposition to war and militarism, fighting job-exporting free-trade agreements and suspicion of unfettered capitalism -- have no place in the Democratic or Republican parties. To the contrary: war, free trade and letting business run wild are nastily bipartisan.       

So more than a third of Americans find nothing of interest to buy in the American marketplace of political ideas. That's a vast untapped pool of potential "customers. These people -- I'd say voters, but many of them don't bother to vote because they hate both parties -- represent an inefficiency in the market. Moments like Occupy, Bernie and the Women's March remind us of the existence of this Left-in-waiting. Someday, obviously, someone will build an organization that attracts America's long-ignored leftists and channels their energies into something powerful enough to achieve power and smart enough to govern.       

Until then, the real left will be coopted by the Democrats.       

Which is what happened to the Women's March.       

To be sure, many Women's Marchers were Hillary Clinton Democrats. The "Love Trumps Hate" signs evidenced that. Yet many more of the demonstrators were Bernie Sanders progressives, socialists and communists who want to see radical change in society and the economy.      

A good indication that the Women's March got coopted into a Democratic boo-hoo Hillary/Cory Booker-in-2020 pep rally was that the speakers were limited to celebrity millionaire liberal Democrats like Michael Moore, Ashley Judd and Gloria. Had this been a militant action (i.e., one that might frighten Trump and the GOP), or a coalition of liberals who welcomed and respected their leftist allies rather than merely wanting to vampirize their righteous anger and energy into midterm votes, the roster of speakers would have included people calling for revolutionary change and action outside of the existing system. There would also have been some radical activists you'd never of who do important work.       

Celebrity liberalism and pleas to vote Democratic are where the Left goes to die.       

No wonder the Women's March was doomed to join the list of fruitless liberal marches! Because they're Democrats, none of the speakers suggested scrapping the whole sick system of systemized poverty, industrialized prisons, war and slave labor altogether. Instead marchers got a washed-up documentary filmmaker urging them to memorize a phone number they could use to call Congress because, yeah, that's going to do so much good, especially these days with Republicans in charge of everything.       

Still, despite the Democratic BS, those huge crowds were glorious. They showed up, they were heard, they hint at the better country we could have.       

May they soon get the radical, genuine political movement they and the world deserve.       

Ted Rall is author of "Trump: A Graphic Biography," an examination of the life of the Republican presidential nominee in comics form. You can support Ted's hard-hitting political cartoons and columns and see his work first by sponsoring his work on Patreon.

COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM

See Other Political Commentaries.

See Other Commentaries by Ted Rall.

Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports. Comments about this content should be directed to the author or syndicate.

Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information.

We conduct public opinion polls on a variety of topics to inform our audience on events in the news and other topics of interest. To ensure editorial control and independence, we pay for the polls ourselves and generate revenue through the sale of subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Nightly polling on politics, business and lifestyle topics provides the content to update the Rasmussen Reports web site many times each day. If it's in the news, it's in our polls. Additionally, the data drives a daily update newsletter and various media outlets across the country.

Some information, including the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and commentaries are available for free to the general public. Subscriptions are available for $4.95 a month or 34.95 a year that provide subscribers with exclusive access to more than 20 stories per week on upcoming elections, consumer confidence, and issues that affect us all. For those who are really into the numbers, Platinum Members can review demographic crosstabs and a full history of our data.

To learn more about our methodology, click here.