When We Say "Civic Uprising" Today, We Mean General Strike— And We Should Start Thinking About That

"Strike!" by Nancy Ohanian

Going back several generations, Pew was unable to find a president with a lower approval rating than Trump’s after 3 months in office. People already sense he’s failing at his job— and dismally so. This isn’t just about his shady character; this is about how he’s handling his responsibilities and how poorly he’s doing his job. Millions of people voted for him because they thought, foolishly, he would be a better steward of the economy than Kamala. I doubt anyone not part of the MAGA cult still thinks that.

On Wednesday, Will Saletan got to the heart of America’s Trump problem: the regime is run by idiots. The incompetence is overwhelming— from “launching a global trade war based on bogus math; yapping about military plans on a Signal chat that included the editor of The Atlantic; inadvertently firing the people in charge of nuclear weapons security; and a lot more… Yes, Trump and his accomplices are malicious. Yes, they’re corrupt. Yes, they’re dangerous. But they’re also profoundly stupid, and their stupidity is hurting or worrying a lot of people who voted for Trump.”

Saletan wrote that “Trump’s talent is exploiting popular resentments and prejudices. Twice now, he has translated that into presidential victories. His problem is what to do after he wins. He can sit at his desk— or in his golf cart, or in front of a TV— and watch other people execute scripted plans such as Project 2025. But where presidential judgment is required, Trump lacks the wisdom, patience and work ethic to figure out how to pursue his objectives effectively or judiciously. He’s an oaf… When the question is execution instead of goals, the middle of the electorate turns against him. And when the damage hits people in the wallet, he can’t hide it.”

He concluded that he wishes “more Americans had recognized the evil Trump represented when he ran for president in 2016. I wish they had recognized it when he ran again in 2024. I wish they recognized it now. We would be a better, safer country if more of our people cared enough about the Constitution and the rule of law to reject this tyrant and his party. But that’s not the world we live in. Kamala Harris tested the proposition that there were enough of us. And she came up short. We need to reach beyond the audience that shares our values. We need to reach people who don’t agree with us on much but who recognize stupidity when they see it— and are willing to throw the bums out.”

Throwing the bums out is what Dan Froomkin had in mind Wednesday as well— and he invited us to join him in a discussion of a civic uprising. [T]he public rejection of the Trump/Musk agenda is going to be a big part of the American story in the coming months… [C]onservative New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote a jawdropping piece on Thursday calling for mass resistance: “It’s time for a comprehensive national civic uprising. It’s time for Americans in universities, law, business, nonprofits and the scientific community, and civil servants and beyond to form one coordinated mass movement. Trump is about power. The only way he’s going to be stopped is if he’s confronted by some movement that possesses rival power.”

But what does a national civic uprising look like? Progressive activist Robert Reich asked that question in his newsletter on Friday. Then he answered:

It may look like a general strike— a strike in which tens of millions of Americans refuse to work, refuse to buy, refuse to engage in anything other than a mass demonstration against the regime.

And not just one general strike, but a repeating general strike— a strike whose numbers continue to grow and whose outrage, resistance, and solidarity continue to spread across the land.

I urge all of you to start preparing now for such a series of general strikes.

Whether you call it a general strike, a social strike, or a civic uprising, such actions are a step beyond protests in that they have a direct effect on a large number of people. They can’t be ignored. And they demonstrate power— the power to shut things down.

As labor historian Jeremy Brecher wrote recently:

The goal of a social strike is to affect not just the immediate employer, but a political regime or social structure. Such forms of mass direct action provide a possible alternative when institutional means of action prove ineffective. In all their varied forms they are based on Gandhi’s fundamental perception that “even the most powerful cannot rule without the cooperation of the ruled.”

Why is the idea of mass actions catching on? Brecher cites three principal reasons:

1. The wide range of people being harmed by the MAGA juggernaut gives credibility to actions based on wide public participation.

2. The demolition of key institutions of democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law is threatening to leave few alternatives to popular uprising.

3. The fecklessness of the leadership of the Democratic Party, as sublimely illustrated by Sen Chuck Schumer’s passage in March of the devastating MAGA budget, has led to despair about resistance within the institutions of government.

Schumer will rush to the head of the march... he should always be pelted with rotten fruit

…One key question about a strike is what role labor unions would play. On the one hand, it’s almost impossible to imagine a general strike working without the enthusiastic participation— indeed the leadership— of labor unions. On the other hand, unions are traditionally loath to call for strikes that aren’t directly tied to contract negotiations, and there are also legal risks, internal politics and the risk of failure to be considered.

Hamilton Nolan, who writes about labor in his newsletter, How Things Work, told me in an interview this week that he thinks the major unions will come around. Trump has already directly attacked unions, including by signing and executive order ending collective bargaining for over a million federal workers.

“I just think that even the parts of organized labor that are not inclined to think in terms of a general strike are going to kind of run out of moves at some point,” Nolan told me.

Nolan said that another nationwide protest set for May 1 will be a test case for people in the labor movement who are thinking about a general strike.

“They’re going to kind of look at that and see how it goes, see what kind of turnout they can get, see what public reaction is like,” he said.

You can get information about the Mayday protest here; and can sign up for an event near you.

Universities Fighting Back!

It is exhilarating to report that the moral collapse of Columbia University, caving into outrageous and reactionary demands from the Trump administration, appears to have been a one-off.

About 300 college and university presidents (so far) have signed a public statement vowing to fend off any such encroachments:

As leaders of America’s colleges, universities, and scholarly societies, we speak with one voice against the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education. We are open to constructive reform and do not oppose legitimate government oversight. However, we must oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses. We will always seek effective and fair financial practices, but we must reject the coercive use of public research funding.

Harvard University— far from caving— has now filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent Trump from slashing billions of dollars of its research funding as retribution for standing up to the administration’s ridiculous demands. As Harvard argues in its complaint: “The First Amendment does not permit the Government to “interfere with private actors’ speech to advance its own vision of ideological balance,” nor may the Government “rely[] on the ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion… to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored speech.” The Government’s attempt to coerce and control Harvard disregards these fundamental First Amendment principles, which safeguard Harvard’s “academic freedom.”

The University of Michigan Board of Regents announced that they will not capitulate to “unlawful or unconstitutional demands.” They wrote: “What’s at stake is nothing less than the ability of American universities to continue leading the world in research, innovation and education, while serving as stewards of free inquiry.”

And they doubled down on their commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion: “Efforts to promote access and opportunity are not illegal, and we will continue to support and grow programs that create educational pathways for students across our state and beyond.