What did Cory Booker 25-Hour speech actually achieve in terms of change?
-
Senators (in the US) are elected representatives of their state. Sen. Booker, through his 25 hour speech, brought his constituents' message to the forefront, criticized the Senate, Democrats' and his own failures to act. He got millions of people to look at Senate business as if he was a professional streamer which is usually boring stuff. The speech is Booker's answer to "what can I do at this moment to make a difference?", which hopefully will get others to ask the same of themselves.
It's impossible to measure the true impact of the speech afterward, but it's intended to inspire people to take action, resist the Trump monarchy, and cause "good trouble" where they can. Who knows whether this has had any influence on the Wisconsin Supreme Court which was a humiliation to Musk, or if it had any influence on the 4 Republican Senators joining Democrats to pass a bill nullifying the false emergency against Canada?
-
And that is absolutely all.
-
It achieved false catharsis, the main scam product Democrats are always selling. Performative nonsense immediately contradicted by their actual (lack of) actions. Immediately afterwards they helped confirm a Trump judicial appointment with help from Booker. His long speech wasn't even to delay any legislation. It has no so-called momentum, which you can note has no stated descriptors in the other comment. Momentum for what? Sitting on your hands and then voting for them again in 4 years? This is not a real political party, it is just the controlled opposition of the US political duopoly trying its usual parlor tricks to make its potential voters stop recognizing how they aren't cleaning house or really doing anything at all.
Real parties do exist. It is a struggle due to the aforementioned duopoly and general level of political education in the USA, but it is a struggle worth joining because this is the only "opposition" you will ever see being forwarded by the Democratic Party by its own volition. Every bit of progress has been hard fought and its vanguard has always been left organizing outside of the major parties. Join that vsnguard!
-
It's better than nothing. But that's all it achieved.
-
People wanting instant gratification is part of the reason we're in this mess. There is not going to be one singular event that fixes everything. Booker stood up there and said that not everyone is going to just roll over and take it. And that does mean something in the long run.
-
I too grew up in an era of action movies, where the good guy divisively self-defenses the bad guy to death, saves the world, goes home and has marital relations with the prom queen. It's a powerful story, but ultimately it's just a story.
Peaceful resistance does work, but there isn't a single event that achieves change. It has to be an accumulation.
Rosa Park's arrest didn't achieve anything "in terms of change".
Ghandi's protest fasts didn't achieve anything "in terms of change".
When the Baltics had their singing revolutions, there wasn't a single performance that achieved anything "in terms of change".
All these were parts of larger efforts of peaceful resistance that culminated in change.
What did Cory Booker's speech achieve? It's too early to say. It's possible it will be part of an accumulation that culminates in measurable results. On the other hand, it's possible cynicism will poison the resistance and it will achieve nothing. We'll only know once the history is written.
-
No, that certainly is not all it achieved. It created awareness and engagement. It shows someone still has a spine. It gives those racist fucks that much more to choke on while they flail around with their dying ideals. Have some imagination.
And why bother being so outwardly dismissive of something like this? What does that achieve? A few upvotes from a few fellow dispassionates? God damn it, no wonder those assholes still feel like they are winning.
-
Allowed the media to focus on something other than Trump.
He also beat Strom Thurmond's speech. I'm fine with a black guy beating that piece of shit's record.
-
I guess I'm just a little more cynical and you're just a little more idealistic. If you review this thread, and the many other threads posted about this speech, in full you'll see I'm not the only one who feels like this is bare minimum effort from Democrat leadership. Agree to disagree.
-
they elected oz in the very next session; using a filibuster to prevent his confirmation is how you use a filibuster effectively.
-
Let's be fair now: he also raised his national profile among the party faithful.
-
How would that possibly have prevented his confirmation? It still went through after Booker's speech on a party-line vote, didn't it? What could Booker have said that would have shifted their opinion? What would you have said during a filibuster that would have any other effect on the party that was bound and determined to confirm him?
-
Lol yeah, that too.
-
the same way thurmond did it; you secure the votes behinds the scenes and then throw a filibuster when it's time to vote to turn up the pain; not when there's nothing on the table and no one around like booker did it.
-
Oh my fucking god. Everyone suggesting he only did this to raise his profile for a presidential run has got to be feeling pretty silly about their lack of cynicism right now. I know I do.
-
Come on, do you truly think there was any chance they'd be interested in shaking hands behind the scenes? These people bowed so low to their king that their pants split months ago. They can't even stand up straight at this point. Yet somehow, I'm the idealist here.
-
What does anything achieve on a long enough timeline? The same nothingness, but for 25 hours the entire senate could do nothing but bear witness to a an unyielding resistance to the cruelties currently in motion. May not be much but some will find inspiration in those that continue to make 'good trouble' I personally found a spark of hope and I'm a real cynic tbh
-
I'm seeing a post and some great comments that were achieved by the speech that's for sure
-
Politics isn’t sportsball, so no. Breaking arbitrary stats doesn’t mean shit in terms of making material changes in the world, which is what politics is about.
