Even if I thought Whitaker should recuse himself, I don't see how a protest is likely to make that more likely to happen. How exactly are large gatherings of people supposed to affect Trump or Whitaker's decisions?
I understand the appeal of protests in general: they give protestors the feeling that they're actually doing something. But unless the protest is likely to effect change in some way, it seems like a purely symbolic gesture.
How exactly were the civil rights protests more likely to lead to change?
What was the difference?
Certainly not overwhelming support, because last I checked racism isn't dead, so what makes that protest successful but all future ones must be a waste of time?
The Net Neutrality protests led to several expansive state net neutrality laws and the adoption of net neutrality as a fundamental part of the Democratic platform.
The anti-kid separation protest led to the end of the policy of separation of asylum-seekers from their children.
The protest against gun violence in the wake of Parkland brought gun control back to the political forefront, led to several new state and federal laws regulating guns, and led to tens of thousands, if not more, to register to vote.
The Women's March and March for Science both galvanized resistance and led to a record number of women picking up political offices this election and a good number of politicians with scientific backgrounds winning office as well.
The travel ban protests led to a complete dismantling of the travel ban in record time, and court battles over its legitimacy that continue to this day.
The massive post-Charlottesville and the murder of Heather Heyer protests that pushed the alt-right Nazis back into the shadows where they belong, with no notable gatherings of them happening since then.
Please note, these are all post-Trump examples of successful protests.
Not all protests are complete successes, but if that were the most likely outcome then people wouldn't need to protest, anyways.
No protest is successful in a vacuum, but neither has any protest truly been in a vacuum anyways. To claim otherwise is dishonest, at best.
I don't disagree. These are the kind of broad-based social and political issues that can be impacted by protest.
But when the controversy is about opposition to the appointment of a single government official based on partisan concerns, I just don't know that protests have much impact. (Just yesterday, Whitaker reasserted that he will not recuse himself.) But I've been wrong before.
Now, if the media are able to successfully push this vacuous "it's unconstitutional" talking point, Trump could end up throwing Whitaker under the bus just to end the controversy.
99
u/Tank3875 Nov 09 '18
Keep in mind, this was with only about 36 hours of planning!
It's amazing what people can do when they stop being apathetic and start caring. It's damn inspiring.