The recent actions of Indivisible, a prominent left-wing group, highlight a growing divide within the Democratic Party. The organization, known for mobilizing protests against President Trump’s administration, is now directing its attention toward Senate Democrats. Specifically, they are targeting those who voted with Republicans to end the government shutdown. This strategy marks a significant escalation in their effort to influence elected officials.
Ezra Levin, co-founder of Indivisible, expressed frustration with Senate Democrats in a press release, stating, “We’re done waiting for Democrats to find their spine.” Levin’s commentary reflects a sense of urgency among progressive activists who feel that Democrats have failed to assert themselves amid what they describe as authoritarian threats.
The protests linked to Indivisible, dubbed the “No Kings” protests, have emerged as major events in recent months, with significant participation reflecting public discontent with Trump’s policies. The group, initially formed to counteract Trump’s agenda, is now explicitly holding Democratic lawmakers accountable for their actions—or inactions—regarding issues critical to their base.
Indivisible is not working in isolation. It has rallied support from a network of like-minded organizations, including the 50501 movement and the No Kings Organization, to amplify their message. This coalition has found a voice through large-scale protests that have drawn attention to their cause. Protests on June 14 and more recently in October signify a grassroots resistance that contrasts sharply with the conventional political strategies employed by some Democrats.
During the current government shutdown, which has become the longest in U.S. history, Levin criticized Senate Democrats for not standing firm against Republican tactics. “Instead of standing with that energy,” he said, referring to the resurgence of Democratic voter enthusiasm, “Senate Democrats surrendered—yet again.” This sentiment points to a larger dissatisfaction with perceived weak leadership within the party.
The Democratic Party’s internal struggles are exemplified by the split votes among Senate Democrats. Notably, Senators such as John Fetterman and Angus King sided with Republicans to end the shutdown, prompting backlash from left-wing leaders. Sanders and others characterized this vote as a betrayal, calling it a “very bad night” for the party’s direction.
Indivisible’s primary efforts are increasingly focused on pushing out incumbents who do not align with their progressive agenda. The group has made clear it will support candidates committed to actionable change rather than maintaining the status quo. They have mobilized their base, with an impressive 98.67% expressing a desire for Democrats to continue fighting against Republican policies.
Leah Greenberg, another co-founder of Indivisible, emphasized the need for leadership that can confront authoritarianism head-on. She insisted that “Democrats can’t defeat authoritarianism by running from the fight.” This sentiment resonates with an activist base eager for more vigorous resistance against the policies and ideologies they oppose.
As public sentiment evolves, so too do the strategies of organizations like Indivisible. Their commitment to challenging established leadership within the Democratic Party underscores a critical moment for not only Democrats but for the party’s relationship with its voters. The network plans to activate its grassroots support ahead of the anticipated 2026 primaries, focusing on candidates willing to prioritize progressive values over traditional political calculus.
In addition to their dissatisfaction with Democratic leaders, the organizational strategies of Indivisible underline the urgency felt by many in the party advocating for a more confrontational approach to governance. Comments from figures within the party suggest a brewing discontent, with some calling for changes at the top, including demands for Schumer to step down.
The dynamics at play in these unfolding events illustrate a powerful push for change within the Democratic Party. The response from established leaders could very well shape the party’s future approach to governance and engagement with its base as they move forward in a highly polarized political landscape. The apparent clash between progressive activists and the party establishment underscores the friction that often accompanies moments of significant political transition.
"*" indicates required fields
