What if Trump Wins: Envision What Happens After Trump

 

Category	Activity
Protect people being targeted	Mutual aid society Fundraising for nonprofits Underground railroad
Defend existing institutions	Outreach to veterans/families/military Citizen scientist to assist EPA Find grants to strengthen elections
Envision what comes after Trump	Cultural/psychological grounding Constitutional convention
Resistance	Paperclip movement among civil servants Strikes Tax resistance

The next useful option suggested by What if Trump Wins is to envision what comes after Trump.  After all, the authors point out, simply reacting to what Trump does gives him the entire initiative and lets him set the agenda, which creates an obvious advantage for him.  Trump won because people were not happy with the way things were going.  To defeat him, we have to offer a positive agenda.

Actually, I am not entirely convinced.  Trump won because people were upset about inflation and chaos at the border.  If he continues to break Rule Number One of Smart Authoritarians (only take unpopular actions if they advance your power), we may be able to defeat him simply by promising "change."  Nonetheless, we do need a positive agenda for what comes after Trump if we want to avoid breaking into hopeless factional fighting and if we want to prevent a future Trump from threatening democracy.

In every other category, the authors offer three options.  Here they offer only two -- offer cultural grounding to the movement or hold a constitutional convention to propose amendments.  This means there are only eleven categories instead of twelve and causes some unevenness when the groups team up at the end, but let that go.

Provide cultural grounding for the movement.

I found it interesting that the authors saw this as useful, given that they generally warn against limiting yourself to self-expression, such as posting on social media and marching in the streets. At the same time, there is no doubt that a movement of this type needs cultural grounding in the form of songs, art, symbol, and the like.  It is also true that if activists do not practice self-care, they will burn out and end up achieving nothing.  The authors envision "cultural grounding" as including healing circles for mutual aid societies supporting immigrants under attack, and psychological support for whistle blowers being protected by the underground railroad, as well as music, body work, poems, and healing practices.  As this account may suggest, it also means being in contact with many different groups opposing Trump who may not be aware of each other.  And it may mean bringing them together and coordinating them.  This makes support work very important indeed!

This category also differs from the others in that the authors do not offer the alternatives of scaling up or not.  Instead, the strike committee invites you to a meeting in which they plan a large-scale strike to protest Trump's plans to stay in office past his second term.  You, the culture worker, do not really have a role in planning the strike, just keeping everyone grounded and keeping them from rushing into action unthinkingly.  Your actions in grounding and working together may save the movement from splitting into factions all going off in different directions and unable to achieve anything.  Important, indeed!  And I assume that in real life there are people doing something very much like this.  

Constitutional convention:

Just to be clear, our Constitution's provision on amendments says:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress. . .

In other words, amendment by constitutional convention requires request by two-thirds of the states and ratification by three-fourths of the states.  Which is to say, the "convention" will simply be offering suggestions that are in no way legally binding.  But they can create serious political pressure -- really the only use of such pressure the book offers. 

The convention starts in Philadelphia (site of the original Constitutional Convention), in which people express their commitment to the Constitution and offer changes to protect against future Trumps -- most particularly, amendments to make clear that corporations are not people and money is not speech.  Other reforms are discussed (it does not say which ones) and the organizers propose tens of thousands of conventions to be held across the country.  Civil servants from the Paperclip Movement pledge to support them.

So, once again, you are offered the alternatives of running a local convention or setting up conventions across the country.  As with (most of) the other alternatives, going national is essential to be truly effective, but a national network is made up of local chapters, so those are important too.  The authors show a distinct ideological agenda here, with all of the conventions following the same format (presumably learned at the pre-convention) and coming up with similar measures, probably pushed by the convention sponsors.  In all conventions, the leader calls on participants to follow a particular format.  The convention will last three days.  The first day will be dedicated to learn about the Constitutions, the second day to making proposals, and the third day to voting on them.  The last day is like a science fair, with people walking around and hearing debates about various proposals. Some people attend online.  On a large electronic board, people see results coming in from other towns.  

The authors anticipate that there will be wide agreement on eliminating money from politics, setting term limits for senators and judges, ending secret holds and the filibuster, "breaking apart" the two-party system (how?) and creating a pathway to citizenship.  Other proposals such as dealing with crime, guns, and future immigration, are more controversial and are saved for later conventions (or, perhaps, for the usual political process).  The authors envision your local convention having turnout comparable to "some elections."  They also envision national leaders traveling across the country setting up numerous conventions.  (You set up 43).

I have some questions here.  I previously questioned whether people would actually care about the abstract, procedural issues raised here, as opposed to something with more immediate impact on their lives.  But I suppose after spending a day learning what is in the constitution and why it focuses on procedural issues, people may start thinking in different terms.  I am also going to suspect a certain amount of manipulation by the organizers to get the results they want.   I am also curious about the three days.  Are they set over a three-day weekend (Labor Day, maybe), or three successive Saturdays?  Either way, that would seem to exclude service workers who regularly work on Saturdays and holidays.  But let that go.  

I am also interested in whether all these conventions are taking place at the same time.  The part about simultaneous conventions and electronic boards following what is happening in other cities certainly seems to suggest that.  The organizer going from one city to another setting up conventions seems to suggest they happen on different dates.  Several alternatives present themselves.  Maybe the traveling organizer is pre-planning conventions all set to take place on the same day.  Or maybe holding tens of thousands of simultaneous conventions in a country with a population of over 300 million is not feasible and there are multiple coordinated conventions at different times.  The authors are not clear, perhaps intentionally.

Well, to state the obvious, that had not happened.  There have been coordinated marches and protests, but nothing like these coordinated conventions.

Also, I find it interesting that the authors assume these conventions can operate in the open and not be harassed by either the government or rightwing militias.  That seems accurate, based on the protest marches that have taken place without incident.  Even in the most brutal phase of the crackdown in Minneapolis, crackdown coexisted with large-scale protests that were not disrupted.  The authors are assuming tens of thousands of towns, and turnout comparable to some elections (it does not say which ones!).  Like large-scale protests, that is just more people that government can hope to arrest, although it might target the organizers.  That mostly has not happened so far, except where ICE is concerned, but recently there have been alarming developments.

Finally, I started to say that one of these things is not like the others.  Running a local convention takes only three days; the other activities the authors suggest are ongoing.  But that is not actually true.  Presumably setting up a local convention is enough to keep you busy.  You would have to rent a venue, buy refreshments, advertise, set up a social media account and possibly a website, circulate your plans, perhaps design and print brochures, etc. etc.  Still, it does seem reasonable to assume that other people opposing Trump could take three days out from their work to attend.

And when the convention is over, the planners will find their work done and perhaps join some other group.  Yes, granted, they will be tired at the end and want to take a well-deserved break.  But Trump will still be in power and still wreaking havoc, so after the local convention planners have had time to recover, maybe they will want to join one of the other groups.

Also on the MOU

I will also comment that, of course, I think it was stupid to negotiate a settlement that depending on Israel's compliance without consulting Israel.  However, when you get to be my age, you recognize it as not an extraordinary, unprecedented sort of stupidity, but as a perfectly ordinary, routine stupidity that we have fallen into all too often.

Back in Cold War times it was an absolute dogma that we must learn the lessons of Munich.  Diplomacy did not work in dealing with Hitler and therefore would not work in dealing with [fill in the blank].  Some actors were deemed morally unworthy of talking to lest it convey some sort of legitimacy on them.  This meant that diplomacy had not place in our toolkit in dealing with certain actor, but was deemed "appeasement," which didn't work at Munich as therefore must never be attempted again.

Of course, some bad actors were so big there was just no getting away from negotiating with them.  The Soviet Union was the prime example.  We included diplomacy in our toolkit in dealing with the Soviet Union at least since Stalin died in 1953.  For a long time Communist China was deemed morally unworthy to talk to, so we firmly insisted on turning our backs on the world's most populous country, waiting for it to go away.  It did not oblige, and after Nixon went to China in 1972, we opened ourselves to talking to China.  Certain remnants of this outlook remained when Obana undertook negotiations with Iran.  To many people, the details of the agreement were not the point; the point was the act of talking to the Iranian government at all.

This sometimes had absurd results in our foreign policy -- attempting to negotiate the end of a war but refusing to talk to an important belligerent because we deemed them morally unworthy of negotiations.  Unsurprisingly, it didn't work.  Realistic options would have included either talking to bad guys, or else admitting you were not trying to end the war, but only to form an alliance by all other factions to defeat the bad guys.  But we regularly claimed to be negotiating to end a war without talking to one of the sides and failing. 

A prime example to my mind also involved Israel and Lebanon when Ronald Reagan was President and George Schultz -- an eminently serious and highly respected figure -- was Secretary of State.  Lebanon has been wracked by civil war since 1975.  Syria (ruled by a hard left, pro-Soviet government) intervened and occupied large portions of Lebanon.  In 1982 Israel invaded to rout out the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO, forebear to today's Fatah).  The US (always acting through intermediaries because the PLO was one of the groups we could not talk to) negotiated the PLO's withdrawal.  The State Department, under command of George Schultz and acting through a first-rate, highly respected Arab American diplomat, negotiated Israel's withdrawal and a peace treaty between Israel and Lebanon.  Unfortunately, they made the peace settlement contingent on the Syrian forces also withdrawing and neglected to consult the Syrians on the matter, since they were another of the parties who were unworthy of our negotiating with.  It worked about as well as you would expect, with civil war continuing to rage until 1990, Israel remaining in the country until 2000 and Syria until 2005.  (Hezbollah arose out of resistance to the Israeli occupation).

An obvious objection presents itself.  Granting this to be true, clearly Israel has never been one of the countries we refuse to speak to, so the situation is not comparable. In this case, though, we should see the Iranian government as the one that refuses to see Israel as legitimate and therefore refuses to talk to it.

But another phenomenon was also common at the time.  When we were unwilling to talk to a small country or faction, we might instead talk to its sponsor (typically the Soviet Union) and put pressure on the sponsor to put pressure on their client to end the war.  In the Cold War, we might put pressure on the Soviet Union to put pressure on an Arab country, while possibly putting pressure ourselves on Israel.  Here, the equivalent would be us putting pressure on Israel and Iran putting pressure on Hezbollah.  Except I have no idea whether Iran is actually putting pressure on Hezbollah at all.

In short, trying to end Israel's invasion of Lebanon without talking to Israel about it was stupid.  But that, at least, was not stupid in an extraordinary, unprecedented way.  I was just normal stupidity.

Preliminary Thoughts on the MOU

 

So, the text of the Memorandum of Understanding between the US and Iran is out.  What can I say?  I was prepared to say that really, it is better to have a President who makes disastrously bad decisions and backs off when they don't work out so well than one who keeps doubling down.

But honestly, I never thought we would be taken to the cleaners this badly.  Anyone criticizing Obama for not getting the Iranians to agree to halt all enrichment, send all enriched uranium out of the country, scrap its ballistic missiles, stop sponsoring armed proxies, and get nothing in return can just shut up.  I don't see how even Trump can sell this as a win.

Preliminary thoughts below.

MOU	Comment
The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war are signing this MOU to declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph.	Blah (Also, attempts to bind Israel without asking Israel about that.  We will see if that works)
The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs.	Blah
The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran commit to negotiating and achieving the final deal in maximum 60 days, extendable with mutual consent.	Blah
Immediately upon the signing of this MOU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days. During this period, the traffic of vessels will be in proportion to the numbers of pre-war traffic being restored by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal.	OK, that is something of substance.  The US is lifting its blockade.   But what does “remove its forces from the proximity of the Islam Republic of Iran” mean?  Only that we withdraw the ships involved in the blockade?  Or does not mean withdrawing from bases in the Gulf states?  My guess is this is deliberately vague and the parties will fight about what it means later.
Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge, for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles, and demining by the Islamic Republic of Iran will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialog with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.	The Straits of Hormuz will reopen.  Shipping may take 30 days to fully resume.  Iran agrees to refrain from collecting tolls for 60 days.  After that, all bets are off.
The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least USD 300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The mechanism for the implementation of this plan will be finalized as part of a final deal within 60 days. All required licenses, waivers and permissions needed for the relevant financial transactions will be granted by the United States of America.	If that does not mean reparations, it is a pretty good imitation of it.  Of course, Trump stiffs everyone else.  Do the Iranians really think they will be any exception?
The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral US sanctions, primary and secondary, in an agreed upon schedule as part of the final deal. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America acknowledge the critical importance of the sanctions termination issue above mentioned, and expressed their intentions to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.	Holy mackerel!  This is insane!  Of course, Trump stiffs everyone else, so I wouldn’t bet the rent money on this one.
The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have agreed to resolve the disposition of stockpiled enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon in accordance with the schedule mentioned in paragraph seven, with the minimum methodology to be down blended on site under the supervision of the IAEA. The two parties also agreed to discuss the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear needs, based on a satisfactory framework being agreed upon in the final deal. The final deal will confirm the provisions of this paragraph. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran acknowledge the critical importance of the nuclear issues above mentioned. They express their intention to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.	Blah
Pending the final deal, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree to maintain the status quo. The Islamic Republic of Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program, and the United States of America will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region.	Blah
The United States of America undertakes that immediately upon the signing of this MOU and until the termination of sanctions, US Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives, and all associated services, including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc.	The Ayatollah will hold Donald Trump’s testicles in a small box on his desk but promises to give them back once sanctions are lifted.  Seriously, this is presumably backed by the threat to close the straits if terms are not met, which is sort of the same thing, except for the world economy.
The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this MOU. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will mutually agree on the procedures related to the release of these funds during negotiations. Such funds, whether retained in the original account or transferred, shall be made fully usable for payment to any ultimate beneficiary designated by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America undertakes to issue all necessary licenses and authorizations accordingly.	Ditto
The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree that an executive mechanism will be established to monitor the successful implementation of this MOU and the future compliance of the final deal.	Somehow, I don’t think this is addressed to nuclear enrichment
After signing this MOU, and subject to the beginning of the implementation of paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 10 and 11 of this MOU, and the continuing implementation of these measures, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will start negotiations regarding the final deal exclusively on the other paragraphs.	Blah
The final deal will be endorsed by a binding UNSC resolution.	Blah

What if Trump Wins: Defending Existing Institutions

 

Category	Activity
Protect people being targeted	Mutual aid society Fundraising for nonprofits Underground railroad
Defend existing institutions	Outreach to veterans/families/military Citizen scientist to assist EPA Find grants to strengthen elections
Envision what comes after Trump	Cultural/psychological grounding Constitutional convention
Resistance	Paperclip movement among civil servants Strikes Tax resistance

Defend existing institutions

The introduction on defending institutions is really quite similar to the introduction on protecting people being targeted.  Instead of immigration raids, cut to healthcare spending, and rising hate crimes, this section has funds pulled from public schools, far right judges appointed, threats to independent media, and purges of the federal workforce.  Some of these targets, like the federal workforce, are governmental.  Some, like judges and schools, are also governmental, but outside normal executive function.  And some, like independent media, are clearly non-governmental.  It all sounds accurate enough, to say nothing of attacks on targets the authors never even thought of, such as elite law firms, universities, and tech companies.  While the damage to the vulnerable is less immediate and obvious than immigration raids and healthcare cuts, the damage to the social fabric is absolutely real and, over the longer run, highly damaging and disarm the institutions that might reign Trump in.   

But what can we do about it?  In the real world, most of the defense of institutions is taking place in the courts, out of reach of the general public.*  The authors make three suggestions -- organize veterans and their families, supplement federal regulators with scientific testing, and protect elections.  As mentioned before, I was surprised at the focus on governmental institutions -- the Deep State if you will -- when it seemed to me that Trump poses a threat to all institutions, governmental or not.  And the vast flourishing of non-governmental organizations is what makes America truly great.  But thinking it over more, I do believe that maintaining the independence of the "deep state" is vital to preserving the rule of law.  So by all means, let us sign up to preserve it.

Organize veteran families

The authors postulate that the military is being pulled two ways -- between higher officers who are old-style institutionalists, but also bound to obey orders, and the rank-and-file who are more pro-Trump.  They have officers "slow walk" plans to leave NATO, generals fired and even a first lieutenant (!) named Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  We haven't got to the first lieutenant yet, but Pete Hegseth is clearly purging the top ranks and thwarting promotion of anyone who is not white and male.  We also have the military committing war crimes on the high seas and in bombing Iran.  

In any event, the authors propose that you talk to veterans and their organizations and families about the need for the military to stay out of partisan politics and the fearful danger that they might be called on to fire on US citizens.  They imagine a lot of quiet persuasion taking place outside the public eye, like talking to a colonel's wife about how to keep her husband from getting too Trumpy.  And non-commissioned officers expose rightwing extremists in their ranks planning to use a rightwing militia attack on Black business as cover "for more extreme efforts," whatever that means.  (Once again those rightwing terrorists make an appearance).

In protecting people being targeted, the authors offer the choice of staying small, nimble, and local; scaling up on a local level; or going national.  For institution, they offer only the options of staying "small, nimble, and quiet" or becoming larger and open.  In the military instance, there are excellent reasons to stay quiet.  "Being quiet allows you to have some intimate conversations with people inside the military you might miss if you are more open."  A very realistic concern in this case.  Becoming more open appears to mean going onto social media and attracting volunteers.  It calls for taking classes in digital security to avoid doxing.  But the outreach remains private.  The only real difference the authors propose is that if you go public, you can refer the colonel's wife to a network instead of just giving her personal suggestions.  The basic need to stay quiet remains.

I am assuming this proposal is based on calls for retired generals to denounce inappropriate or unlawful acts by Trump.  While there have been occasional reminders that soldiers do not have to obey unlawful behavior, retired military officers have been disturbingly quiet.

Citizen scientists

Team Trump is both relaxing regulatory standards and firing so many regulators as to obstruct enforcement of even the most relaxed standards.  He is particularly protective of pollution from coal.  All of this is spot-on, of course, and highly predictable.  Citizen scientists can do their own environmental testing to supplement an overtaxed EPA and give it guidance in setting priorities.  As in other cases, the authors try to be realistic by starting small -- testing proves serious hazards from a coal fired plant, and it is made to pay a small fine.  As work begins to scale up, climate-change-caused fires put in another appearance.  This time you are able to do real-time tracking that is vital to the public's health and safety.

The authors treat the decision whether to stay small or scale up similarly to the military -- staying small allows you to have intimate conversations you might otherwise miss; going public requires digital security to avoid doxing.  But really, this work seems a lot less dangerous than outreach to the military.  I suppose some EPA employees might face retaliation if word gets out that they are receiving input from citizen scientists. But this just isn't subversive in the same way that military outreach is.  The decision whether to stay local or scale up here is treated similarly to how it is treated with mutual aid.  Stay local and you can persuade your town to rewrite its ordinances to block expansion of some factories and plant more trees.  Scale up, and you can attract participants across the country and get funding and interns from a university.  

Incidentally, this is one of the very few cases other than the elections section that mentions local government.  In the emergency fundraising section, local government puts in a brief appearance for being too sluggish in offering loans to people whose businesses burned down.  In the back section of news stories, state and local government step up to enforce anti-discrimination laws when the federal government refuses.  And there are sanctuary jurisdictions and states that mobilize the National Guard against immigration.  But local government only really comes into focus into the elections section, and necessarily so.  US elections are administered at the county level.

Protect elections

This is obviously very important.  Indeed, the survival of democracy rests upon it.  If the book's 11 options were my real-life choices, this is the one I would choose.  Election workers have faced scrutiny, pressure, and even threats on Trump's say-so.  The authors descend into specifics here.  They recommend a Protect Our Elections report and threats to election workers in Washoe County, Nevada.  I assume this is a real report and real incident.  One major problem is a lack of funding.  Public funding has been cut and some states have banned private funding.  (Certainly, the senior attorney at my office views private funding with extreme suspicion and makes cracks about "Zucherbucks.").  So, you search for grant money, which apparently is out there, though wholly uncoordinated.  How that is reconciled with a ban on private funding is not addressed.  But, once again, the story starts small as you obtain a $500 grant for the local office.  You go to work on finding what grants are out there and assembling the information into digestible form.  Thanks to the grants, election infrastructure strengthens.  Workers can improve trust by explaining the election infrastructure safety, security, and responsiveness ahead of the election instead of after.  Climate-change-caused fires make another appearance, this time destroying mail-in ballots, but you are able to replace them quickly.  

Scaling up once again requires digital security but attracts more volunteers.  I was at first dismissive of the need for security.  This is not a secretive, semi-legal campaign of potential subversion like the military outreach.  It is wholly legal and appropriate.  That was uncommonly naive of me.  In light of recent cries of election fraud and FBI raids on voting rights groups, this is actually quite potentially dangerous work.  Unlike other cases, the authors appear to see scaling up as clearly the better course.  Staying local means passing around a spreadsheet of grant opportunities and makes for a modest strengthening of the local infrastructure.  Going national means setting up a nationally known clearinghouse of grant opportunities and a website where applicants can pre-qualify.  This differs from, say mutual aid or environmental activism in that it deals entirely in knowledge, which can be frictionlessly spread nationwide.  However, non-presidential elections are mentioned only in passing (mention that the midterms are coming up, ballots having to be replaced) and says nothing whatever about the outcome of any non-presidential election.

I will make a few more comments about the helping and protecting sections.  The protect people sections all begin with immigration and move on.  None of the defend institutions actions discuss immigrants at all.  Times rightwing militias burning buildings come up -- four, in all three protect people scenarios and the military outreach scenario.  Number of times climate-change-related fires come up -- also four, in the mutual aid society, joint emergency fundraising, environmental protection, and elections sections.  No militia attacks on voters, though, perhaps surprisingly.

Now on to envisioning the future and offering resistance.  Rightwing militias and climate-change-related fires will drop out.

_____________________________________________________
*The authors recognize as much, having Trump's attempts to replace 50,000 to 100,000 federal employees delayed by the courts but eventually go through.  

What If Trump Wins: Protecting People Being Targeted

Category	Activity
Protect people being targeted	Mutual aid society Fundraising for nonprofits Underground railroad
Defend existing institutions	Outreach to veterans/families/military Citizen scientist to assist EPA Find grants to strengthen elections
Envision what comes after Trump	Cultural/psychological grounding Constitutional convention
Resistance	Paperclip movement among civil servants Strikes Tax resistance

 So, having addressed the predictions in What if Trump Wins, I want to move on to their prescriptions.  The authors comment that their categories of actions are not so distinct as they may seem, and I agree.  In particular, most* of their proposals really are geared to building new institutions that the authors hope will survive if Trump is defeated.  The authors would presumably like to see a society with a dense network of mutual aid societies and fundraisers for local non-profits, with federal regulatory agencies supplemented by citizen scientists, a clearinghouse for election-related grants, with the sort of cultural grounding they propose, and with not just their proposed constitutional reforms, but the democratic method they think the convention should follow.  And, at the same time, the proposed courses of action give us some idea what they think likely to happen under Trump.

So, without further ado, here we go.

Protect people being targeted.

This is the section that talks by far the most about immigration, which makes sense, because immigrants take first place among people being targeted.  But it does not focus exclusively on immigration.  It paints a general picture -- large-scale immigration raids, summary deportations with little to no due process (no mention of a massive prison network, although that was mentioned before the election), loss of funds for health departments, increased workplace violence and hate crime, with a corresponding reduction in prosecutions.  Accurate enough except for the hate crimes and workplace violence, and even an understatement for immigration. As options, it offers mutual aid societies, emergency fundraising for non-profits, and an underground railroad.  In all cases, the authors aim for realism by starting small.  In all cases they also have a significant focus on immigration at the start but move on to other topics as well. 

I previously said that the authors appear to regard staying small, nimble, and local; scaling up on a local basis; and forming a national network all as valid options.  Looking back on it, that is only partly true.  It is true that the issue of whether Trump is defeated does not rise or fall on any of these decisions.  But scaling up does accomplish more than staying small, and if the goal is to build new institutions meant to survive whether Trump is defeated or not, then these things matter.

Mutual aid society

This version has you start by preparing a spreadsheet of needs and offerings.  It starts very slowly, and you spend much of your time cleaning up the spreadsheet and researching to find resources for unmet needs.  An elderly couple gets help building their wheelchair ramp and pays it forward with music lessons.  The society starts offering weekly community meals that draws attention to their work.  Things speed up with an ICE raid on a local plant after the owner reported his own workers just before payday.**  The work is not initially seen as political and draws volunteers broadly across the political spectrum.

And here we go.  If you don't scale up, more and more people come to you for food after a plant closing (watch these plant closing, there will be a lot of them).  The system is even more stretched after a climate change-caused fire (watch these climate change-caused fires.  There will be even more of them).  If you scale up locally, you still have food needs, a plant closing, and a climate change-caused fire.  But you talk more about problems with the system at community meals.  Two volunteers leave the group, saying it is becoming too politicized. You add new programs like tree planting and visiting people in nursing homes.  Finally, if you build a national network, you get to see how other mutual aid societies across the country work. The network helps your community with the plant closing and climate change-caused fire.  Your community, in turn, helps out other communities when the Mississippi floods.  You are even interviewed in national news.  

So, what conclusions can we draw from this.  Well, for one thing, neither the Trump Administration nor rightwing militias appear to see the mutual aid networks as a threat or make any attempts to bother them.  Members are not afraid to give interviews to national news.  Expanding to a national network allows communities across the country to help each other.  But taking the option of a national network does not leave as much time to contribute to your own local community, with tree plantings or visits to senior homes.  I think the authors' point here is to encourage national networks, but also to recognize that a national network is necessarily made up of local chapters.  In other words, building a national network and growing your local organization are both good options.  Some should do one and some should do the other.  But do try to expand on one level or the other.

Joint emergency fundraising

The authors assume, accurately enough, that Trump will cut assistance to non-profits everywhere.  They also assume that larger nonprofits can make up the difference with high profile fundraising, but smaller groups are feeling a serious pinch.  A bunch of small groups band together to do joint fundraising and have a community funding source decide how to distribute.  In a gesture toward realism, it starts very slowly and you spend more time that you expected answering details about who get the money, when, and how.  The ICE raid when the local plant owner turns in his workforce** makes another appearance.  Joint emergency fundraising is also not initially seen as political and draws people from across the political spectrum.

If you stay small, the climate change-caused fire puts in another appearance, along with a rightwing militia burning down local (presumably minority-owned) businesses.  Resources are strained.  You decide to become more political, offering for each militia member to raise $100 for progressive causes.  Two members quit to protest the politicization, but the fundraising ploy works.  Scaling up on a local basis is not too different.  In this case, the expansion allows you to offer no-interest loans to businesses to rebuild much faster than the city.  It also means running an op ed denouncing the militia.  Finally, if you go national, you become a national fundraiser regranting to local groups.  There are tradeoffs -- speed versus accountability.  Thoroughly vetting groups lead to delays; moving quickly leads to mistakes and money being poorly used.  But you opt for speed, counting on a group's good local reputation.  The climate-change fueled fire and militia burning Black businesses make another appearance.  The differences in scaling up are less clear here.

Underground railroad

This one naturally focuses heavily on immigration, though not exclusively.  It begins with an undocumented community member whose neighbor put all her contact information online and called ICE on her three times.   It seems uncommonly naive to expect (as the authors apparently do) that she could escape arrest with that much exposure.  And the authors sound equally naive saying that the cases "aren't numerous."  They do increase when we again meet the plant owner who calls ICE on his workforce right before payday,**  Naturally work speeds up a lot at this point.  Operational security is vital, of course, but many "conductors" are remarkably open about their work to allow people in need to find them.  Security means moving people on to the next "station" and not knowing what becomes of them after.

Here expansion is not just a matter of scale, but of openness.  It also moves into other areas besides immigration.  The authors envision a rightwing militia burning Black businesses and the owner finding a bomb planted in his car and has to be moved to safety.  If you choose to stay local, the authors also envision smuggling a high-ranking EPA whistle blower who has been fired and doxed.  And, again, if the assumption about immigrants totally fail to foresee how bad it would get, the militia attacks are mercifully something that has not happened.  I am less sure about the whistle blower.  There do appear to have been doxing and threats toward a wide range of government officials who stood up to Trump, though actual physical violence appears to be much less common.  That is about it if you stay quiet and local.  Another option is going local but more public -- running an op ed in the local newspaper about the general nature of your work, without, of course, the operational details.  This brings in more work.

The authors propose that going national starts with attempts at online training that are not very successful.  Instead, the most effective way to work is through somewhat countercultural religious organizations -- Black churches, Quaker meetings, synagogues and mosques.  This is interesting as being to sole mention of religion in the book.  I do believe that organized religion can be a valuable ally on behalf of immigrants.  Many immigrants will be members, after all.  It is a shame that the authors do not consider this any further.

In background news, the authors propose Trump sending that Texas National Guard into California to take the place of uncooperative local police, and ICE raiding a house full of immigrants and 200 neighbors coming to their defense and some of them being shot by ICE, though not fatally.  This sounds accurate, all right.  It also proposes Stephen Miller as the head of ICE (plausible, though not what happened), the underground railroad smuggling the targets to safety (not feasible, alas, there is no safety, but there are ICE watchers disrupting operations), and a veterans' network including retired generals denouncing politicization of the National Guard (also not quite what happened, but reports are that National Guard members were unhappy with being deployed against fellow citizens, and the Supreme Court eventually put at least a temporary stop to the practice).  It also envisions Liz Cheney being arrested and the underground railroad moving the rest of the January 6 Committee to safety, along with some 2000 other targeted whistle blowers.  Trump's Department of Justice has, indeed, being showing and increasing and alarming tendency toward political targeting -- though still well short of 2000 cases (so far as I know).  On there other hand -- where is safety?  Canada?

__________________________________________________

*Some might argue all, but I disagree on some of the more resistance-minded, less legal options.
**I have my doubts about this.  I do not doubt that many unscrupulous employers wage theft and other highly exploitive practices with an undocumented workforce that does not dare report the abuses.  Indeed, who can doubt that many unscrupulous employers hold the threat of deportation over their employees to force compliance.  But calling ICE on your workforce right before payday requires recruiting and training a whole new workforce, no doubt with delays and down time while doing this.  It does not seem like a sustainable model.

Wait, WHAT?!

 

This sounds truly alarming!  The FBI has raided the offices of a voting rights organization in Ohio and seized its assets.  Over a hundred agents showed up at the houses of members to question them, sometimes with subpoenas for their electronic devices.  This is the first time so far that voter intimidation has gone from empty talk to serious action.  To call it alarming is a major understatement.

So why did I accidently stumble across it when scrolling through Facebook?  The raid apparently happened on Thursday.  Why is this the first I have heard about it?  I follow many progressive media/social media accounts.  Not one of them has so much as mentioned this alarming incident! They seem obsessed, instead, with whether Trump's name will finally come off the Kennedy Center.

What the *&^%$#@!!! is going on here???!!!

What if Trump Wins: What the Authors Got Right, What They Got Wrong, and What They Missed Altogether

 

Category	Activity
Protect people being targeted	Mutual aid society Fundraising for nonprofits Underground railroad
Defend existing institutions	Outreach to veterans/families/military Citizen scientist to assist EPA Find grants to strengthen elections
Envision what comes after Trump	Cultural/psychological grounding Constitutional convention
Resistance	Paperclip movement among civil servants Strikes Tax resistance

It has been over a year since I looked at What if Trump Wins' predictions about how he might act to compares with what he actually did.  It has been interesting, at least in part for some of the obvious things the authors left out.

Certainly, they got many things right, predicting Trump would:

• Pardon the January 6 rioters (true)
• Withdraw from the Paris climate agreements and delete all mention of climate change from government websites (true)
• Close the border (true) 
• Make deep cuts to healthcare and other social spending (true)
• Make widespread layoffs of federal employees (true)
• Attack emissions standard (true)
• Gerrymander (true)
• We also have to look at what it implicitly predicts Trump will not do.  As previously mentioned, it assumes that civil society will continue to flourish (true) and liberal media will still feel free to criticize Trump (true).

Other guesses were mostly right but missed some details, such as predictions Trump would:

• Engage in mass deportations with little or no due process -- true, but seriously understates just how bad it would be, as it failed to foresee mass incarceration or the true scale of the reign of terror in some area.
• Appoint far right judges -- certainly the plan, but just getting started
• Reclassify 50,000 to 100,000 federal employees as Schedule F, i.e., lacking civil service protections -- completely arbitrary firings have been much worse than they foresaw, and many federal employees have just quit rather than do what Trump wants, but true Schedule F has just gotten started and covers only about 8,000 employees.  So, this is both worse and not as bad as anticipated.
• Violence against peaceful protesters -- only when ICE is involved
• Calls to prosecute opponents -- some attempts, but mostly duds, except where ICE is involved

And some things have not materialized:

• Abortion restrictions.  Trump knows better than to touch this hot potato.
• Attempts to outlaw electric vehicles.  Elon Musk is probably a factor there.  On the other hand, Trump really does seem determined to outlaw solar and wind power.
• Widespread rightwing terrorism.  There appears to be some hiding in the shadows, in the form of threats to judges and politicians.  Still, judges and politicians have shown a lot more courage than one might expect.  And there has been no visible rightwing terrorism targeting the general public.  The authors predicted rightwing militias terrorizing immigrant communities and burning down minority-owned businesses, and a surge in workplace violence with a (related) decline in prosecution.  Again, this hasn't happened.  Although ICE has been worse than the authors predicted, rightwing violence has not surged.  I would expect it to surge if Democrats ever come to power again.

But equally interesting are the things that the authors either don't mention, or mention only in passing.

Some are excusable.  The authors accurately predict mass cuts and firings in regulatory agencies and implied cuts to services.  They can hardly be expected to foresee just how rash and erratic these cuts were through DOGE.  DOGE is mostly in the rearview mirror these days, but the damage from the cuts, and potential future cuts, remains.  

The Epstein files are never so much as mentioned.  Of course, the Epstein files were not really on our side's radar screen.  And, although the files seriously crimped Trump's style for his first year in office, I think they are also mostly in the rear view mirror. 

And there is little if any mention of Trump's egregious corruption, although it was highly predictable.  But admittedly it is not something your average citizen can do anything about, so it may not be a focus for that reason.

Other omissions are just as striking and less excusable.

The economy is mentioned only in passing, and only in the "resistance" sections.  tariffs to do not get mentioned at all. When addressing Trump's reaction to the resistance, it says that Trump's approval ratings are sagging, and the economy is "shaky" due to his erratic policies.  That sounds about right.  The economy has really not been all that bad, but Trump's erratic policies have caused damage, and this has been a major factor in hurting his approval rating.*  So, I would say this is right, but gets a lot less emphasis than it should.  The success of Trump's entire presidency will rise or fall on this factor.

There is only one mention of foreign policy, in the entire book.  That is in the military section, which has Trump propose to withdraw from NATO and the military convince him to do a "partial withdrawal" that keeps the US in NATO.  He hasn't gone quite that far, at least yet, but the overall picture with regard to Europe sounds about right.  And some things the authors predict with regard to the military are clearly worse than anything that has happened, at least yet.  The authors predict that the rank-and-file will be more pro-Trump than the leadership, which looks about right.  But their feared surge in rightwing terrorism by military personnel hasn't happened (so far).  They also have Trump get so frustrated with the Joint Chiefs of Staff that he appoints a first lieutenant to the job!  Nothing that insane has happened.  While General Dan Caine appears to be somewhat unconventional in being a retired three star general instead of an active four star, he also appears to be one of the few grownups in the room.  What the authors totally fail to foresee is Trump's enthusiasm for military intervention.  On the one hand, Trump did run on a promise to stay out of wars.  On the other hand, how surprising can it be that he likes beating up on weaker countries?

And, astonishingly, there is essentially no mention of electoral politics below the presidential level.  Midterms rate a single mention in the protecting elections section.  "You look ahead to the midterms future elections and you see much to worry about."  The authors go on to propose finding grants to strengthen election infrastructure and say that election workers can now explain how elections work ahead of time.  Their sole mention of a non-presidential election is to propose that, thanks to grants, when ballots are destroyed in a climate-change-related fire, the grants make it possible to quickly send out new ones.  But no mention whatever is made of the outcome of any non-presidential election!  That seems like an important omission!

I will game out their proposed potential scenarios in an upcoming post.

______________________________________________

*It was also presumably an important factor in his decision to end the Iran war and, if successful, will probably show some recovery to both the economy and Trump's popularity.