Hell Yes: Gloves Off

What's even left to compromise on?

In the HRC presidential-campaign days, I had little patience for the critics shouting down her centrism. I coolly acknowledged that while my personal politics fell to the left of the Hillary platform, the gains of her moderate progressiveness outweighed the upheaval (and latent misogyny) of the Bernie-leftists.

I could see and agree with the perspective that everyone was worth fighting for, that there is no compromise to be made about the civilian lives lost to drone bombs, the prison industrial complex, the anemic social support for the poor. Except … I did see a need for compromise. I saw the value of “reaching across the aisle.” I saw the necessity of “incrementalism.”

It’s different now.

Now that the Trump administration has shown us that it is disorientingly possible to just blow by anything like incrementalism and hurtle us into a hard-right wall, now I’m finding blessed oxygen in the DSA campaign of Zohran Mamdani, the impassioned rhetoric of Jasmine Crockett, the leftist purity of AOC. My hells-yes are going to the radicals, the blow-up-the-system types.

And I don’t think I’m alone. Democratic members of Congress are facing a new kind of pressure from their own voters—demands to break rules, fight dirty, and literally put their bodies on the line. At town halls across the country, constituents are telling their representatives that following norms and playing by the rules isn't enough anymore.

"This idea that we're going to save every norm and that we're not going to play [Republicans'] game ... I don't think that's resonating with voters anymore," one House Democrat told Axios.

The demands are getting extreme. "Some of them have suggested ... what we really need to do is be willing to get shot" when visiting ICE facilities, one lawmaker revealed. Another said constituents have told them, "Our own base is telling us that what we're doing is not good enough ... [that] there needs to be blood to grab the attention of the press and the public."

At times, it’s sounding less aggressive strategy and more like pretty dangerous restlessness. Voters are telling their representatives that "civility isn't working" and even to prepare for "violence ... to fight to protect our democracy." One House member said people have sent them messages saying to "storm the White House."

Hold on. Are we the insurrectionists now?

All this isn't coming from the margins—these demands are largely from "white, well-educated" voters in "upscale suburban or urban neighborhoods," according to multiple lawmakers. People are watching Trump dismantle democracy while Democrats cite bloodless “procedure” and minority party limitations. They're watching children get separated from families while their representatives talk about "winning back Congress in 2026." The message of getting the vote out seems especially infirm when many of us are wondering if there will ever even be an election again in our lifetimes.

Historically, violence does not aid social movements. The public often rejects it as unjustified. But the same is true with state violence against peaceful protesters—or children, farm workers, gay makeup artists. As the state moves ahead with violent arrests and kidnappings, Americans are turning against the administration.

Is it useful to ask Democratic representatives to risk getting shot at Alligator Auschwitz? The Axios piece strongly suggests it isn’t. Many Democrats in Congress are people of color, LGBTQ, and women. Is it right to ask them to put their bodies in harm’s way? To ask our representatives to literally bleed for their constituents? Maybe we don’t ask Sarah McBride to risk violence and arrest. But, like, could we ask them to commit civil disobedience?

One lawmaker said in a meeting, "When they light a fire, my thought is to grab an extinguisher." Someone at the table responded: "Have you tried gasoline?"

I don’t know, man. I’m feeling like, hell yes. Maybe we don’t burn it all down—but step on the gas.

*An earlier version of this post suggested Sen. Chuck Schumer could be an elected official we might ask to risk violence and arrest. A reader has rightly pointed out that singling out Schumer—a Jewish lawmaker—echoes harmful antisemitic tropes about Jewish expendability. I regret the error and have changed the copy.

---

I’m Brianna, producer of What Rough Beast and longtime friend of the Sub.

In this column, we’re featuring ongoing movements and campaigns fighting for human rights and protesting this administration’s policies and budget cuts. We’ll be bringing you updates on protests, campaigns, community organizing, and other forms of resistance that you may or may not have heard about.

If you know of resistance efforts that inspire you and deserve attention, please share them in the comments or email me directly.