Women's March Long Term Impact

[Frodo]

I posted this once already, but it got lost in the subsequent trolling in the Women's March Megathread. 

So, let's try this again:

What does everyone think will be the overall impact of the Women's March?  Will it be like the ephemeral Occupy Wall Street rallies of a few years ago, or could this be the moment the Democratic version of the Tea Party movement was born?

[DC Al Fine]

Way too early to tell, but I would guess no. No particular reason for that guess other than most movements don't have that much of a lasting impact, and "Women's March" somehow feels too broad, yet too sectarian to have a big impact.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

What? These things have impact?

[bagelman]

Nothing

[Intell]

Nothing

[NeverAgain]

I think this march is the (hopeful) start of something bigger, and I think it could evolve to become a similar version of Tea Party, of couse, only if we continue the activism.

[Waterfall]

Isn't the march already plagued by racial infighting? Aren't white participants being asked to "check their privilege"? I think those "intersectional" issues haven't been fully hashed out yet and are cause for an inherently cracked foundation to the "movement" such as it is.

That said, I don't expect much to come of this anyway. The whole thing seems to be based on the fact that Trump said and did some very (arguably criminally) boorish things once upon a time. At the end of the day people can only stay worked up about that for so long. To add fuel, they must tell themselves that Trump will overturn Roe v. Wade, defund Planned Parenthood, cut Federal daycare programs, etc. etc. but these are of course fantasies to begin with, and when they don't come to pass the fuel will turn out to be water.

However, the movement could pivot and redirect its energy into a specific issue. I can think of a few different issues that might receive this energy injection, and then we will find ourselves talking about that issue for a few more years when we might not have otherwise. But that still doesn't clearly determine whether that would result in an actual policy change. For every woman who rants on Facebook about what a bastard Trump is and goes marching around with a sign, another woman will roll her eyes and support Trump. (Also consider: which type of woman do you think has more kids on average?)

[Beet]

It will have at least as much impact as the March for Women's Lives in 2004, which was a strong statement of pro-choice sentiment at a time when choice was on the defensive.

[elcorazon]

I think we will have a burst in increased engagement and whether it continues will depend on the Trump Administration and the Republican Congress. If they keep pushing to the right, I think this movement grows and you see a swing back in 2018

[nclib]

Given how quickly this got set up and how well-attended it was, and how many sister marches there were (even in other countries), I'd like to think that liberals will remain politically active. Whether or not it will affect public policy, and also election results in 2018/2020, remains to be seen. Unless House/Senate Republicans stand up to Trump, he can do pretty much what he wants.

[Waterfall]

Unless House/Senate Republicans stand up to Trump, he can do pretty much what he wants.

Really? Do you really believe that?

[Mr. Smith]

Unless House/Senate Republicans stand up to Trump, he can do pretty much what he wants.

Really? Do you really believe that?

Indeed, the statement should be reversed.




As for the original question:

Nothing

[politics_king]

If Trump continues the way he's governing, it's going to get huge. Trump is listening to the people who voted for him but I don't think he realizes that it's not the popular opinion of the entire country. Though, anyone who knows the kind of person Trump is... He wants to please everyone. He just wants to be liked, which is why he's reaching all over the place, it's just which part of his administration takes control. That's how he is though, let his "teams" fight it out then listen to the winner. Which could be disastrous for everyone. Help us all, if Bannon/Flynn types win out, because they are that right-wing extreme part of his crew. I'd be fine if the pragmatists get a the ultimate say like his son-in-law, who I'm not a fan but socially understands the Bannon types are going to destroy this country if they get their policies.

[Waterfall]

Unless House/Senate Republicans stand up to Trump, he can do pretty much what he wants.

Really? Do you really believe that?

Indeed, the statement should be reversed.

No, my point was that to believe Trump would ever be in a position where he can do whatever he wants assumes our system of checks and balances doesn't exist. This view ignorantly ascribes an erroneously large amount of power to the executive branch, power which it simply doesn't have. This is simple 8th grade civics!

[nclib]

Unless House/Senate Republicans stand up to Trump, he can do pretty much what he wants.

Really? Do you really believe that?

Indeed, the statement should be reversed.

No, my point was that to believe Trump would ever be in a position where he can do whatever he wants assumes our system of checks and balances doesn't exist. This view ignorantly ascribes an erroneously large amount of power to the executive branch, power which it simply doesn't have. This is simple 8th grade civics!

I phrased it badly and exaggerated it. Certainly, Trump can't do anything because there are limitations of the executive branch. My point is that liberals/Democrats have limited checks over Trump.

[Waterfall]

I phrased it badly and exaggerated it. Certainly, Trump can't do anything because there are limitations of the executive branch. My point is that liberals/Democrats have limited checks over Trump.

Thanks for owning up to that. Now the next question is, what exactly do you think Trump actually wants to do, and how confident are you that you're right?