By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon delivered an extensive speech on the Senate floor, lasting nearly 19 hours, to denounce President Trump’s actions as authoritarian. Merkley’s speech focused on Trump’s deployment of federal agents to cities like Portland and Chicago, as well as perceived retaliatory actions against political opponents. The senator argued that these actions undermine American democratic principles and are a threat to the republic. Fellow Democratic senators supported Merkley’s address, emphasizing the potential harm caused by Trump’s leadership.
Read the original article here
Democratic senator’s floor speech condemning Trump enters 16th hour: It’s quite something, isn’t it? A Democratic Senator, Jeff Merkley from Oregon, has been on the Senate floor for what’s now a staggering 16 hours, passionately condemning Donald Trump’s actions. He’s focusing on what he sees as a worrying trend towards authoritarianism, particularly highlighting the deployment of military forces in his hometown of Portland. It’s hard not to be impressed by the sheer stamina required to deliver such a lengthy speech, especially considering the man is 68 years old. You’ve got to admire the dedication, the sheer commitment to making his voice heard.
This isn’t just a quick statement; it’s a marathon. Merkley started around 6:20 PM on Tuesday evening and, with only brief pauses to take questions from fellow Democrats, continued well into Wednesday morning. He’s using the Senate floor as his platform, standing alongside visual aids, placards proclaiming “authoritarianism is here now!” and “Trump is violating the law.” It’s a very old-school political move, a direct address to the nation from the heart of the Senate, and you can see why this would be appealing to some who feel the Trump administration has been trampling over the constitution. You have to wonder how many people are even aware of this happening and if the media is covering it.
The reaction, as one might expect, is varied. Some see this as a crucial act of defiance, a necessary stand against what they perceive as an erosion of democratic norms. They see it as a way to draw attention to what they see as Trump’s overreach, a tactic to pressure Republicans and raise public awareness of the issue. One commentator even suggested this is a great way to encourage Republicans to get back to the table on the shutdown so they can discuss the issues at hand, in order to avoid this being the current spotlight. They believe the senator is doing good work, making his voice heard, and representing his constituents well. They are proud of their home state. Others view this as performative politics, a theatrical gesture with little real-world impact. Some believe that, while admirable, such speeches don’t ultimately change anything and are possibly just a way to stave off potential primary opponents.
The media coverage, or lack thereof, seems to be a significant point of contention. Many have remarked on the relative silence from major news outlets, with some pointing out that MSNBC seems to be the only one even mentioning it. This raises the question of whether this is a reflection of a media bias or a symptom of the increasingly polarized political landscape. One might question if the mainstream media is being complicit in the slide toward totalitarianism. This lack of coverage frustrates those who believe this is a crucial issue that deserves wider attention, leaving many feeling that the efforts of the senator are being overshadowed. It’s a valid concern, as a lack of media coverage can undoubtedly diminish the impact of such a speech and potentially limit its influence on public opinion.
There are also more nuanced perspectives, acknowledging the symbolic importance while questioning its practicality. Some suggest that while a speech is a valid use of time, it could be better spent putting forth ideas. Others feel that more radical actions may be necessary. Some observers view it as a way for a senator to gain favor, not in the eyes of their constituents, but with the “1%,” for future endeavors. The comments suggest that there’s a strong desire for more active opposition to perceived authoritarianism, a sentiment that fuels the debate on the most effective ways to challenge the current administration. However, it’s clear the importance of a coordinated effort among all senators who care about democracy to take a stand.
The discussion surrounding Merkley’s speech also brings up broader questions about the role of the Democratic party and the strategies it employs. Some are asking why the Democrats don’t use the tools available to them to counter what they see as Republican overreach. The question of whether Democrats are as effective as they could be in their opposition is a valid concern. The lack of a filibuster can be seen as a sign of weakness in the face of what some perceive as a threat to the nation. This all contributes to a very heated debate surrounding the current political landscape.
Regardless of where one stands on the political spectrum, Merkley’s marathon speech serves as a reminder of the passion and intensity that currently fuel political discourse. It’s a clear statement that at least some members of the Senate are willing to go to great lengths to voice their opinions and challenge the actions of the current administration. Whether this speech will ultimately sway any votes, influence policy, or spark a larger movement remains to be seen. But there is one thing that’s certain, Senator Merkley has made his voice heard, loudly and at length.