If I Were to Choose My Own Adventure

I don't play fair when I do choose your own adventure stories.  Invariably, when I choose a course of action, I end up backtracking to see what would happen if I made the other choice and end up charting out the various outcomes.  What if Trump Wins is no exception.  But, of course, real life is not like that.  In real life, once you make a choice, there is no going back to see what would have happened if you had done something else.  

 So, if the options the book offers had been my real life options what would I have done?  The authors recommend taking one of four alternatives -- protect people being targeted, defend existing institutions, envision what comes after Trump, or strategize forms of resistance.  They also comment that these categories may not be so different overall.  The choose-your-adventure only allows you to pick one.  I think that point is that you should not attempt to do it all.  Doing it all will spread you too thin and mean not doing any of them very well.  Better to stick to one area and do it well and trust that other, like-minded people will take up the things you do not.

At the same time, the authors comment that these categories may not be so different after all, and seem to implicitly acknowledge that some people may do more than one.  At least, non-resistance people are invariably approached by a "longstanding volunteer" who has been a "steady volunteer" in whatever the non-resistance person does, but whose work is mostly with the resistance.  So in the actual world, people may be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

However, let us assume, in the real world, that those four choices present themselves.  Let us assume that my local Indivisibles chapter responds to Trump winning to setting up four committees -- one to protect people being targeted, one to defend existing institutions, one to envision what comes after Trump, and one to plan strategies of resistance.  The say that all four are important, but urge everyone to stick to just one thing and do it well.  Which one would I pick?

I do not see much doubt.  I would pick the committee defending existing institutions.  Why?

Well, I am too timid and too conflict-averse to be a good choice for the resistance.  Envisioning what comes after Trump sounds like a lot of fun, but I am the sort of person who is more likely to be the wet blanket, telling everyone why the things they want to do are not practical.

But why would I choose protecting institutions over protecting people.  Well, for one thing, there will always be people needing help and protection.  Of course, there will be more once Trump gets going (true!), but still, the difference is one of degree and not of kind.  I would anticipate Trump launching an assault on our institutions that is wholly unprecedented.

And besides, when you look at the broad sweep of history, what is it that makes America truly great and truly exceptional?  (And I do believe that we are great and exceptional, for all our flaws).  Well, it is obvious not the absence of oppression against individuals or communities.  Our history is a sorry parade of dispossession of the indigenous population, slavery, racial terror, segregation, and wave after wave of nativist hostility to immigrants, often accompanied by violent riots.  

And yet we have managed to move past these things -- not perfect by any means, but a vast improvement on our past.  All of these shameful episodes in our history were matched by struggle against the oppression -- often failing, but ultimately successful.  And what made this improvement possible?  Independent institutions.  Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote about Democracy in America, the final chapter of his first volume addressed the existence of racial oppression in the US and cast a deep shadow on everything else he may have to say.  One may, by all means, consider this to be grossly inadequate.  But he marveled at our freedom of association and proliferation of independent institutions -- a proliferation then unmatched anywhere in the world. 

Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions, constantly form associations. They have not only commercial and manufacturing companies, in which all take part, but associations of a thousand other kinds—religious, moral, serious, futile, extensive, or restricted, enormous or diminutive. The Americans make associations to give entertainments, to found establishments for education, to build inns, to construct churches, to diffuse books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; and in this manner they found hospitals, prisons, and schools. If it be proposed to advance some truth, or to foster some feeling by the encouragement of a great example, they form a society. Wherever, at the head of some new undertaking, you see the government in France, or a man of rank in England, in the United States you will be sure to find an association. I met with several kinds of associations in America, of which I confess I had no previous notion; and I have often admired the extreme skill with which the inhabitants of the United States succeed in proposing a common object to the exertions of a great many men, and in getting them voluntarily to pursue it.

And later: 

There is only one country on the face of the earth where the citizens enjoy unlimited freedom of association for political purposes. This same country is the only one in the world where the continual exercise of the right of association has been introduced into civil life, and where all the advantages which civilization can confer are procured by means of it. In all the countries where political associations are prohibited, civil associations are rare. It is hardly probable that this is the result of accident.

Oppression of disfavored groups is nothing new in this country.  The threat to independent institutions is new and threatens what would otherwise be instruments of resistance.  And I have come to the conclusion that old school conservatives are right -- that independent institutions are the basis of a free society, and that we have all become too dependent on federal largess, and that such largess, in the wrong hands, is a threat to the independence of institutions.

So it came as something of a surprise that the section on defending institutions focused specifically on government institutions.  This section has more of a government focus than any other.  The section on helping individuals being targeted does so entirely through non-governmental entities -- mutual aid societies, fundraising for non-profits, and an underground railroad.  The section on envisioning what comes next offers two alternatives.  One is providing cultural grounding, which obviously is not governmental.  The other is a constitutional convention, which proposes government reforms to advocate, but is strictly the work of private citizens.  As for the resistance section, one option is strikes, which are not governmental.  One is withholding taxes to oppose government.  And one, though somewhat unclear, appears to be an organization of civil servants pledged to refuse unlawful orders, which is something within government (I think).

Still, let us suppose that I join Indivisible's protecting institutions committee and it turns out to focus on governmental institutions.  I do believe that some degree of insulation of the government bureaucracy from the President's unlimited discretion is necessary for preserving the rule of law.  The authors offer three examples of government institutions whose independence must be preserved -- the military, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the elections infrastructure.  

Obviously keeping the military out of partisan politics is essential to the survival of democracy.  Some day we may face Donald Trump ordering a coup and the survival of democracy may depend on their refusal of the unlawful order, so this is very important.  The authors suggest reaching out to veterans and their families, and active duty military families to use their influence to remind the military of the need to stay out of partisan politics.  I have neither the connections nor the networking and persuasive skills to do this, so this one would not be my choice.

The next option they offer is assisting the EPA as a citizen scientist.  I do approve of this and think it is useful, both as a force multiplier, and for weaning ourselves off the federal teat.  If I were playing the choose your adventure properly, I might pick this option.  However, in the real world I do not have the scientific knowledge and skill to do testing for the EPA as a citizen scientist, so I would pass on that as well.

The final option is protecting elections.  This is also very important; indeed, the survival of our democracy may very well depend on it, so if these were my options in the real world, that is the one I would pick.  The adventure than has me searching for election grants and preparing a spreadsheet of what is out there.  That sounds well within my skill set, so I suppose if the choose your adventure were taking place in real life, this is the option I would take.