Paul Rogat Loeb

Seven reasons Dems should drop this failed leader — now

If the Democrats want the best possible chance of winning the midterms, Chuck Schumer needs to step aside now. Even when the Senate Minority Leader does the right thing, as he did in standing up for Obamacare subsidies during the shutdown, he does it badly. And the Democrats have now caved on this because he couldn’t hold his caucus together. So just as Abraham Lincoln repeatedly changed generals in the middle of the Civil War, helping the Union win, it’s time to replace Schumer without delay.

Schumer isn’t the only reason for the Democrats’ dismal 33 percent approval rating, which stays that low even as Donald Trump’s wrecking ball leadership combines with strong Democratic candidates and grassroots energy to produce nationwide Democratic wins. But as minority leader, Schumer has been the party’s most salient public voice — every day and in crises like the shutdown. And he functions as a dead weight anchor, with a -26 percent net favorability rating and 62 percent of Democrats in a recent poll supporting new leadership.

Here are seven reasons to press Democratic senators to ask Schumer to follow former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s lead and step aside now. And if he doesn’t do so voluntarily, to remove him with a vote:

Schumer inspires no one. With Trump destroying lives and institutions daily, Democrats need leaders who can make the consequences of Republican choices clear and present credible alternatives. Schumer’s words are leaden and responses timid. His idea of resistance is sending a “very strong letter” to Trump. One press release had a 35-word title. Effective political leaders don’t always have the full gift of prophetic voice, but Schumer’s so far from this, it conditions people to expect nothing.
He doesn’t get modern communication. Schumer has a built-in advantage on social media because of his position representing the party. But combining every major platform, he has 4 million followers, mostly on Twitter/X, vs 32 million for Bernie Sanders, 31 million for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 18 million for Elizabeth Warren, and 8 million for Gavin Newsom. AOC built her following with just six years in Congress and no special position. At this point, South Park has done more to oppose Trump and break apart his coalition, and it isn’t close.
Schumer is an old-looking, old-talking, and old-thinking 74, staring down, with faltering energy. That’s a combination particularly toxic to young voters, a key constituency that the Democrats must continue regaining. The betrayal young voters felt from the constant assurances that Joe Biden was fine continues to damage the party, and Schumer is the most visible symbol of leadership past its prime. Yes, young voters embrace Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren continue to be a powerful voice in her 70s. But Schumer is the leading visible symbol of the party, and has none of their vitality, directness, and genuineness.
He’s turned his back on the future. He wouldn’t endorse Zohran Mamdani for New York City Mayor after Mamdani won the Democratic nomination by engaging precisely the kinds of voters the Democrats need to win back. That’s a massive indictment of Schumer’s distance from the party’s base and from the energy that could help drive its revival.
Schumer is isolated from critical feedback. Democrats who’ve strongly spoken out against Trump have taken every opportunity to meet and engage the public, whatever wing of the party they represent, Schumer has withdrawn, afraid of the blowback, even canceling his book tour.
Schumer lacks the strategic and tactical skills to meet the unprecedented challenges of the moment. Pelosi led the way on every piece of key legislation the Democrats have passed and held every faction of her caucus together (yet still knew when to step down). Whether the Democrats were in the majority or minority, Schumer has never really led. In terms of challenging Trump’s profoundly destructive actions, other Democratic officials and grassroots activists have had to step forward on their own, even though it was Schumer’s responsibility to plan a coordinated response. The budget fight cave in is just the latest setback, one built in part on his failure to act last spring.
Schumer is also fundamentally compromised on critical issues, in ways that validate every stereotype of Democrats as barely better than the Republicans. Firstly, regaining the support of working-class Americans of all ages is key for the party. But Schumer’s role as longtime Wall Street champion, and massive fundraising from financial interests makes him a terrible symbol to address America’s runaway inequality. Secondly, Schumer is one of four sitting Democratic senators who voted for the war in Iraq, a mistake that cost the Democrats and the country dearly and gave Trump the opening to run (falsely) as an antiwar candidate. Thirdly, Schumer continued to support every Israeli action in Gaza, while just 8 percent of Democrats and 19 percent of all younger voters supported Israel’s horror show. This summer, Schumer smiled for a photo with Benjamin Netanyahu and opposed any limitations on aid, while kids were dying to get food. By linking the Democrats with Netanyahu’s war, Schumer drove voters away in 2024 and continues to do so, even with the ceasefire.

It’s tempting to say, “Schumer is terrible, but we’re stuck with him.” That's something I’ve heard too often. People worry about fracturing the Democratic coalition in a time when united resistance to Trump is critical. But inertia in a time of crisis, even an existential one, is never an excuse.

Pretty much any Democratic senator would be an improvement, except those who caved on the shutdown, though it would help if the new leader were younger, more dynamic, better at communicating, and yes, less compromised. And could hold together the Democratic coalition like Pelosi did consistently and Schumer has not.

Since we don’t have a Lincoln to simply replace ineffective generals, it will take organizational and grassroots pressure to get Schumer to step down. Indivisible has just launched a campaign asking people to pressure their democratic Senators to vote him out. Other groups should promote it as well. If we can succeed in replacing Schumer, that very fact can began to change the image of the party toward one willing to grapple with the kind of vision for the future it needs to fight for.

Paul Rogat Loeb is author of Soul of a Citizen, The Impossible Will take a Little While, and three other books on social change, totaling 350,000 copies in print. He’s written for the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Miami Herald, and AARP Bulletin.

Crucial anti-Trump protests risk failure if these key improvements aren't made

Will the Oct. 18 No Kings protests equal or surpass the 5 million who marched in June? Donald Trump’s poll numbers keep dropping with his escalating attacks on democracy. People are hungrier than ever for ways to act and resist. And the huge Jimmy Kimmel victory should create resistance momentum. But when I look at the major national days of protest since the original No Kings, I see organizing and communications breakdowns that make their impact less than it could have been. And we want them to be as large and broad as possible.

One problem is Trump opponents relying too much on self-organizing. Groups or individuals use tools like the Mobilize maps to call a demonstration, post time and location, and then assume people will show up: If you build it, they will come. But this can replace the hard work of building coalitions, engaging people to participate, and directly coordinating efforts.

It’s also hard to know which are the major events. For Oct. 18, I went to the No Kings map that all the groups link to and punched in my Seattle zip code. It came up with two neighborhood events plus two more general ones with similar enough descriptions to be largely indistinguishable.

Later I saw a utility pole flier for the one that had mentioned Indivisible peripherally, and discovered that the sponsors also included SEIU, Planned Parenthood, League of Women Voters, and three major state-wide activist organizations. That’s a major coalition. But when if first clicked to RSVP there was no way of knowing that. And even after the host group belatedly added a link to the larger list of sponsors, the only way I found that out was clicking the RSVP page again.

I then entered the zip codes for Detroit, Philadelphia and Atlanta. They all had just one main center-city event listed, plus suburban events, so that was less confusing. New York City had two in Manhattan and separate Brooklyn and Queens events. So again less confusion. But even if you clicked through, the main events all just said “volunteer organized,” giving no clue to the large coalitions organizing them.

If people don’t know whether an event is organized by three random friends or a dozen major groups, it’s hard to know which to attend. Friends throughout the country have mentioned a similar confusion.

I suspect that’s one reason for the drop-off since the original No Kings events. Seattle’s No Kings demonstration had over 50,000 people. But since then, no Seattle demonstration has turned out more than a few thousand, and multiple events have divided attendance — we had three different Labor Day “Workers Over Billionaires” events.

The drop-off has happened with all the subsequent national protest days, important as they’ve been.

No Kings Day had over 2,000 events, drawing over 100,000 in Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, 50,000 or greater in a half dozen more, and at least 10,000 in 45 cities.

Since then, we’ve seen coordinated protests for the anniversary of John Lewis’s death, for Labor Day, and for the Sun Day renewable energy events. The John Lewis anniversary had 1600 events and Labor Day and Sun Day each had hundreds. Their breadth has been powerful, reaching into communities nationwide. But the numbers have been significantly less than the original No Kings.

From what I can find, Chicago Labor Day had 10,000 people, maybe a bit more. Austin had 5,000 people as part of a day of events challenging Texas redistricting. Others have had several thousand, although some have been highly creative, like a Portland Oregon Sun Day event that brought together 30 groups for a renewable energy festival and a parade across a downtown bridge that might have also had higher numbers.

The original No Kings numbers were larger in part because the events were a counterpoint to Trump’s military parade, which helped with advance media coverage. But while I’m seeing all sorts of notices for the new No Kings, the necessary organizing since last June seems to have been more scattershot, with fewer fully engaged coalitions, and more reliant on the maps.

When multiple competing events post without clear information on who is sponsoring them, it’s hard for people to know where to attend, or whether to attend at all. And when they list multiple recognizable sponsors then it makes it more likely for people to go, because it feels like you’re part of a movement where people are working together with power and momentum. It certainly felt that way at the first No Kings Day.

Lots of powerful resistance is going besides those major protests and rallies. More modest rallies in smaller suburbs and towns, and local neighborhoods, have underscored that opposition is everywhere. Protests at Tesla dealerships, Sinclair TV stations, and challenges to ICE have made a difference even when the numbers are modest. There are some critical fall elections and people are getting out the vote. The Jimmy Kimmel campaign was an important victory as multiple groups sent out alerts, entertainers stood in solidarity, and ordinary people pressured local stations and advertisers, including attending local vigils.

But national protest days still play an important role for building a sense of common power and solidarity, inspiring local news coverage, and bringing people together for further action. If we want them as successful as possible, organizers need to do more to:

Make clear which are the main events in their cities, so supporters can focus organizing attention, and participants know which to attend.
Press Mobilize to add a field for endorsements and co-sponsors, where hosts could enter multiple organizations. When I corresponded with one of their staffers, she said it would take multiple groups requesting it for them to make it happen.
If Mobilize doesn’t do that, highlight the larger potential rallies on other ways, including in the text on the Mobilize postings, so members know which ones to attend.
Coordinate on the ground. Affiliates of the national groups need to be working with local labor, environmental, civil rights, social justice, and faith groups. And then asking members to text, call, and email their friends, so invitations come from trusted messengers.
Post fliers or posters on lamp posts to complement digital outreach with a physical advance presence.
Collect contacts at every event to plug random new participants into future efforts, for instance by using QR codes. Then work together continually, not just for major events.

Given the Trump regime’s threats to democracy, Oct. 18 should be a key moment for pushing back and building further momentum. Our tools and approaches should serve this purpose as effectively as possible.

Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of Soul of a Citizen and The Impossible Will Take a Little While, with nearly 300,000 in print between them. Sign up for his Substack here.

We won the battle over Jimmy Kimmel. Here's how to win the PR war with Trump

When ABC/Disney indefinitely suspended Jimmy Kimmel, it seemed unlikely they’d reverse their decision within a week. Trump and his allies aimed to suppress not only Kimmel’s voice, but to intimidate anyone opposing them. Instead, the suspension backfired, energized the Trump opposition, and offers lessons on how to push back on the administration’s other attacks on democracy.

Let’s recount the history. After the killing of Charlie Kirk, Kimmel posted, “Can we just for one day agree that it is horrible and monstrous to shoot another human.” He also sent his family’s “love to the Kirks and to all the children, parents and innocents who fall victim to senseless gun violence.”

But the attacks on Kimmel didn’t mention that, focusing instead on his statement that “the MAGA gang [is] desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”

Suspect Tyler Robinson’s parents were indeed strong Trump supporters, so he did come out of a MAGA background, even if he likely left that culture. Maybe Kimmel could have been clearer. But Kimmel’s point about the Trump team trying to score political points has only been proven more true.

Trump had already warned in July that Kimmel should be fired, after Stephen Colbert of CBS. After Kimmel’s statements following the assassination, Trump FCC head Brendan Carr threatened to fine and revoke the licenses of stations carrying Kimmel’s show, stopping just short of leaving a dead horse on the bed. Nexstar and Sinclair then jumped in saying they wouldn’t air Kimmel’s episodes, and Sinclair demanded Kimmel personally donate to Turning Point USA, Kirk’s group, and to his family. ABC/Disney caved. Vladimir Putin and his oligarchs would have be proud.

Except that Americans responded with appropriate outrage. The cancellation site of the Disney+ streaming service reportedly crashed. Late-night talk hosts and Disney stars spoke out. People demonstrated in front of Disney HQ, led by the Writer’s Guild and supported by the other film industry unions, and at ABC headquarters in NY. More than 400 actors and other entertainers, including some of the biggest names in Hollywood, signed an ACLU letter.

Grassroots reactions accelerated as progressive organizations engaged. Common Cause launched a Turn Off Disney campaign. FreePress.Net started a call-in campaign. Indivisible offered a menu of approaches, MoveOn circulated a petition. Hashtags trended: #BoycottDisney, #CancelDisneyABC, #CancelDisneyPlus, #CancelHulu,#BoycottSinclair, #IstandWithJimmyKimmel.

The pushback even crossed party lines, with Kimmel getting support from conservative-leaning comedians. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) focused on Carr’s threats of suspending licenses, saying it was “unbelievably dangerous for government to put itself in the position of saying we’re going to decide what speech we like and what we don’t, and we’re going to threaten to take you off air if we don’t like what you’re saying.”

So what are the lessons for continuing to push back against Trump and all he represents? How can we make it more difficult for Trump and his allies to silence Kimmel later, or others who’d challenge them?

When consumer-facing companies like Disney support Trump’s agenda, they make themselves vulnerable. The boycott campaign targeted theme parks, cruises, movies, and channels like Disney+, ESPN, and Hulu. While the political right runs boycotts as well (and has threatened Disney), the company’s craven submission to Trump gave a chance to levy pressure and remind people that if they can target Kimmel, they can target anyone. We can use boycotts in other contexts as well — like the oil companies that helped pay for Trump’s election in return for his doing his best to smash renewable energy. We just need to pick effective targets where it’s straightforward to highlight their dubious actions.
The response built a broad coalition of fellow-citizens who were outraged, whether or not they were Kimmel fans. If we’re going to stop Trump’s attacks on democracy, it means working with people we don’t necessarily agree with. The courageous Russian dissident Alexei Navalny talked about why, when there was more space for dissent, he supported the right of Russian nationalists to protest Putin, and even helped them organize, although he found some of their views repugnant. We need to make our coalitions as broad as possible.
Disney caved, but Nexstar and Sinclair jumped in to lead the charge following Carr’s FCC threats. And have so far refused to put Kimmel back on. So continued pressure on them makes sense, particularly as Sinclair played a longtime role demanding that their stations air their right-wing segments and talking points. Nexstar hasn’t historically been as aggressive, but is asking Trump’s FCC to relax market concentration rules to let them merge with Tegna. Even if we can’t block the merger their actions around Kimmel lets us highlight the danger of allowing a handful of oligarchs to dominate what people see and hear. Continuing to targeting Nexstar, and Sinclair’s local stations is a way to give people a way to continue involvement, with local public protests echoing the Tesla Takedown campaigns in giving people ways to act within their own communities.
Culture matters, as the Trump supporters know well. Just because a high-profile entertainer comments on an issue or supports a candidate, it doesn’t automatically mean the positions of their fans will change or their candidate will win. But speaking out with passion and heart, as people did around Kimmel, can move others to act.
Boycotts can pressure station advertisers. Local groups can announce targets. People can find advertisers by watching local broadcasts. The Kimmel suspension even inspired a crowdsourced map where people can take pictures of TV ads and upload them with links to which advertiser and which station. Supportive congressional representatives can investigate the conversations FCC head Carr did and didn’t have related to Kimmel.

Because Kimmel was such a visible public figure, the efforts defending him were able to ride a wave of major news coverage and massive spontaneous public reactions, including by people who weren’t political junkies. But if we’re to build on this momentum, it’s going to take coalitions that act together, persist, and coordinate, instead of over-relying on spontaneous reactions or self-organizing maps. Local Seattle groups, for instance got excellent coverage for organizing a protest at their Sinclair affiliate KOMO. But when individuals launched a boycottdisneyabc.com site and listed a separate protest the next day at the same station, along with other ABC/Nextstar affiliates, literally zero people attended. Successful pushback takes both organization and individual action.

Kimmel wasn’t the only media figure targeted for questioning Kirk’s values or how the administration was using the murder to attack political enemies. MSNBC fired Matthew Dowd and the Washington Post fired columnist Karen Attiah, but they had far less presence than Kimmel, and responses so far have been limited. So lots more work remains to be done, particularly since Trump made clear at Kirk’s funeral that he’s coming after more organizations and people.

By reversing Kimmel’s suspension, however, those of us who acted got a taste of our own power. The Kirk shooting was a tragedy on multiple levels. It escalated American political violence. It gave Trump and his allies a martyr, whose death energized them with an even further sense of righteousness. It sowed a fear that if you spoke or wrote the wrong words and didn’t toe the line, you’d be a target next. But because the administration so immediately jumped to weaponize the murder against their enemies by targeting Kimmel, and because so many individuals and organizations successfully pushed back, the restoration of his slot gave the majority of Americans who oppose Trump a sense of possibility and agency — which we can carry forward. They showed that a would-be dictator can try and shut down people who disagree with him, but when enough of us act and stand together those efforts will fail.

Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of Soul of a Citizen and The Impossible Will Take a Little While, with nearly 300,000 copies in print between them. Sign up for his Substack here.