Don'ts:
Don't resort to violence. It simply discredits your movement and gives the authorities an excuse to move against you. It also scales up more than anything else, in the sense that it doesn't take all that much violence to give any movement a bad name. Agree. Despite a few acts of vandalism at Tesla dealerships, we have generally avoided violence.
Don't give up, despair, or flee to Canada. This is what is known as "submission in advance." Remember, hope gives no guarantee of success, but despair guarantees failure. Again, agreed.
Don't limit yourself to street protests. Street protests are all fine and good, but they are just the beginning. By themselves, street protests are not sustainable and will fizzle out. They have to be followed by organizing. Again, agreed. That is the lesson of the Tea Party's success and Occupy Wall Street's failure.
 |
| Don't let t come to this |
I will add that people I know who cut their political teeth in the 1960's have a mixture of enthusiasm and anxiety about protests that I am not quite old enough to understand. The Kent State shootings are a major traumatic memory for them, and the general, widespread use of violence against protestors in the 1960's. This may be why so many of them feared the National Guard firing on peaceful protestors and I was more willing to give the Trump Administration the benefit of the doubt on that score. We have been having protests and getting safety instructions that always strike me as a little overwrought. Counter demonstrators have shown up and tried to provoke us, so far without much success. Maybe our peace keeping team makes a difference and things would have gotten ugly without them. But really, the counter protestors have been vastly outnumbered.
 |
| Or it just might come to this |
Observers of the April 19 protests commented that the protestors were significantly older and whiter that the ones during the 2020 protests. I feel mixed about that. On the one hand, it confirms the view that we are out of touch elitists. We will not have the really broad-based movement we need until crowds start looking younger and darker. On the other hand, an older, whiter crowd is also less likely to riot, which is all to the good.
In general, I think our side need to refrain from violence, but also not be too fearful of a violent response, either from the state or from the militias. If Trump had 10 million Proud Boys, things would no doubt be quite different. But he doesn't have them. While the authors underestimate the ease with which Trump would close the border and just how aggressively his government layoffs and cutoffs of funding would be, they overestimate the threat from rightwing militias. Let's not give them any excuses. And the warning about the need to move beyond street protests is sound.
Do's
The authors recommend four courses of action as useful:
- Protect people being targeted;
- Defend existing institutions;
- Strategize acts of disobedience; and
- Plan for what comes after Trump.
This is not to say that everyone should devote themselves to all four activities. Specialization and division of labor are essential to any really effective activity -- but with coordination as well. The authors offer some procedural advice here that strikes me as sound. People who want to protect individuals and institutions are generally people who dislike conflict. And protecting work is certainly useful -- up to a point. But the time may well come when they need to get out of their comfort zones and confront the regime.
To people strategizing acts of disobedience, the advice is the opposite. Calling for civil disobedience too soon will receive a feeble response and weaken the movement. You have to wait until the time is ripe. The time frame is not clearly laid out, but most scenarios talk in terms of seeing small political changes "over the next year." Whether that means the first year Trump is in power or the first year after the first 100 days. One scenario refers to events that happen by the semiquincentenial (July 4, 2026). That is purely speculative, of course, but it gives some idea when the authors think the time my be ripe. We are not there yet.
Finally, it is important not just to be against Trump, but to offer a positive alternative. Defending existing institutions is all very well, but the reason people voted for a man proposing to burn it all down is that they thought our institutions were not working for them. We need to offer something better.
All of this seems like sound advice. In gaming out what might happen, the authors introduce their own agenda.
Protect people being targeted
The authors have three suggestions here -- a mutual aid society, joint emergency funding, and an underground railroad. Many of these are alternatives to government funding, which has been pulled (true). The authors clearly like the non-hierarchical nature of mutual aid societies -- no division between givers and recipients, but everyone gives when they can and accepts when they need. But fundraising for existing organizations that lost their federal funding also works. Neither activity is overtly political, and the authors imagine that they may lose supporters if they come out as openly anti-Trump, but in the end they must. An underground railroad -- primarily for immigrants, but occasionally for a federal whistle blower -- is a riskier option. The authors also seem to think that staying small and nimble, staying local but expanding offerings, and forming a national network are all reasonable options.
Defendant existing institutions
The authors here offer three options that presumably are just intended as a sampling of what is possible. One is to reach out to veterans and their families and urge them to use their ties to the active duty military to remind them that the military must stay out of domestic politics. One is for fired federal scientists (and presumably other skilled workers) to do their work outside the federal government and possibly use information they have gathered to help regulatory agencies get by on a smaller staff. One is to work with election workers to keep elections safe, educate voters, and the like. Once again, the authors consider either staying small and nimble or building a broader network as reasonable options. They do see these things as being more confrontational and posing more danger than mutual aid or charitable fundraising. If you want to scale up, better adopt strong cyber security to avoid being doxed. And they differ from helping people being targeted by involving local government. The role of local government in elections is obvious. And the authors suggest local regulations when the feds are unwilling to act. Obvious question -- why can't state or local government also be part of funding nonprofits?
Envision what comes after Trump
Here is where the authors reveal their ideological agenda most of all. They favor a constitutional convention, or rather, a series of local conventions to recommend changes to the Constitution. They recommend that these conventions follow a certain format -- a three day convention, with the first day devoted to learning, the second to making proposals and discussing them, and the third to voting on them. The authors consider this a good general format for participatory decision-making. I suppose it works if you have three days to spare. Not everyone does. The convention adopts the proposals that have widespread support and leave the more controversial ones for a later day. This seems like a sound approach.
The measures that are widely supported, presumably including by the authors are term limits for judges and senators, ending the influence of money in politics, ending secret holds and the filibuster, "breaking apart" the two party system, and a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. More controversial are guns, crime, and other aspects of immigration. Funny, but I don't think these procedural issues are what most people are most likely to care about. They seem too abstract to excite most people. The part about imposing term limits on judges was presumably born of frustration at the Supreme Court's overall direction, particularly in repealing protection for abortion and creating the doctrine of presidential immunity. I am guessing that a lot of people may feel differently seeing how firmly judges have held the line against Trump, largely thanks to lifetime tenure that protects them from political pressure.
I must admit to mixed feelings about the filibuster as well. I do think the general principle of voting by simple majority is a sound one. But the filibuster may also turn out to be essential to blocking many aspects of Trump's agenda. And the authors do not make clear how the convention proposes to "break apart" the two party system. Two party systems seem to be inherent in a first-past-the-post electoral system. Do the authors propose ending the first-past-the-post system and, if so, how? Especially, how can that be done for the President. And it does seem strange that they don't propose ending the Electoral College (not that it would have made a difference this time around, but the authors didn't know that).
Strategize acts of disobedience
The authors offer three alternatives, presumably not intended to be exhaustive. One is simply to adopt a symbol (they propose a paperclip) to represent refusal to obey an unconstitutional order. One is to strike -- starting with a one-minute strike that will scarcely be notice, and then to escalate to a 15 minutes strike. Another is an organized movement to refuse paying taxes, in whole or in part.
While the other approaches largely continue on their own, with no response by the Trump Administration, the more confrontational movements do receive a response. The book games out possible responses by Trump -- none, denunciation by tweet, arresting leaders, or having the IRS seize the movement's assets.
At the risk of stating the obvious, these three approaches are not equivalent. Wearing a paperclip or other symbol of resistance is completely legal. The narrative also talks about the movements leaders, assets, website, etc. What leaders, assets, website, etc? While there are laws governing when strikes are and are not allowed, does anyone truly think anyone will care about a one minute work stoppage? Or even 15 minutes? Refusing to pay taxes, by contrast, is clearly illegal. The authors appear to recognize this, by having the IRS crack down much harder on the tax protesters than the others. While the author treat staying local and nimble or connecting on a nationwide scale both as reasonable alternatives for the other movement, it makes clear that anyone seeking confrontation must reach out to others before it initiates a showdown. A showdown will fail without a sufficient number of supporters. This will happen if the resistance movement does not reach out to a wider population, or if it strikes before the time is ripe.
How will be know when the time is ripe? In the meantime, the adventures imagine serious crackdowns on immigrants (true), subversion of the federal bureaucracy (to some degree), packing the bench with MAGA judges (may happen, but hasn't yet but presumably will) and violence by rightwing militias (probably an exaggerated fear). (The book also mentions a shaky economy resulting from Trump's erratic polices, but does not emphasize it). The back of the book has some shocking potential headlines -- Liz Cheney is arrested, HHS bans "gender affirming" care, hate crimes rise and the feds refuse to prosecute, Trump threatens to withhold funds unless Congress bans abortifact drugs, and the Texas National Guard goes to California to crack down on immigration, leading to a shootout. Some of the groups featured in earlier pages show up in these stories.
But still the time is not ripe for confrontation. While these shocking stories clearly mean that groups focused on confrontation should reach out to a wider public, still they are not quite ready for the final confrontation.
How will be know when the time is ripe? The authors have two hypotheticals -- Trump trying to stay in office in defiance of the 22nd Amendment, and Trump trying to forcibly shut down an electric vehicle plant. No, I don't know how the authors chose the electric vehicle plant, but it strikes me as unlikely. Another obvious possibility suggests itself -- Trump openly defies a Supreme Court order, probably one involving the rights of immigrants.
The authors are understandably vague about the time frame. In numerous scenarios the authors say, "Over the next year, you see small political changes around you. But it barely feels like a dent amidst the national scene." So they envision a least a year going by before the time is ripe. Is this a year from when Trump was first inaugurated, a year from when you, the hypothetical actor, first take action, or a year from Trump's first 100 days?
We get a better picture of the hypothetical time frame for anyone who declines to join in the confrontation when the crisis strikes. As you celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 2026, resistance leaders are beaten and arrested. Democracy enters an irretrievable downward spiral. So the authors appear to believe that the decisive moment will take place in the first half of 2026. Perhaps for this reason, the midterms play no role in their scenarios. There is some ambiguity here. The electric vehicle scenario has the Trump regime fatally weakened relatively early but limp out the rest of the term. The 22nd Amendment scenario takes place in the first half of 2026 if Trump opponents fail to stop him, but skips over to 2028 if confrontation proceeds. Make of it what you will.
Meanwhile, what is really happening?
Thus far I would say that immigration crackdown is worse than the authors anticipated, firing of federal workers and cancelling of federal funding is also worse, but private rightwing violence is not nearly as bad as they expected. Civil society continues to function -- both in reality and in the book. How are people responding in real life?
The authors comment that their proposed categories -- protecting people being targeted, defending existing institutions, strategizing forms of disobedience, and envisioning what comes after -- are not such separate categories as they propose. Also, a whole lot of resistance is taking place at the elite level, out of reach of regular folks like you and me. I suspect the authors recognized this but did not emphasize it because the book was written, after all to suggest what you, John Q. Citizen can do.
Elite litigators, including state attorney generals, the ACLU, and immigration rights advocates, have challenged many Trump policies in court. People are quitting law firms that knuckled under to Trump. Law students are keeping spreadsheets to show which firms have and have not submitted. Private parties are saving data the federal government has deleted. An immigration rights activist is tracking and compiling ICE flights and passing the information on to immigration lawyers -- and training others to do the same.* All of this is extremely valuable. Some of it is geared toward protecting people being targeted and some is best described as building new institutions. It is all very valuable -- and all out of reach of most people.
In the meantime, a lot of resistance is taking place through ordinary political channels. People aren't just showing up in the streets; they are showing up in town halls to confront members of Congress. 5 Calls is organizing calls to Congress. Indivisibles regularly shows up at Congressional offices. Run for Something is seeing record numbers of people seeking to run for local office. Democrats are focusing on a positive agenda, mostly focused on building more housing. Aside from the focus on protecting elections What If Trump Wins? does not really pay attention to any of these options.
Speaking just for myself, I must admit that I have not yet decided what I want to do to oppose Trump. But my hypothetical goal is to do two activities -- one solely benevolent and not overtly political, and one overtly political and activist. I just haven't decided what yet.
_______________________________________
*If there is anyone I fear should flee to Canada, this is probably who.
No comments:
Post a Comment