They recommend four courses of action and comment that these may not be so distinct after all:
- Protect people being targeted
- Defend existing institutions
- Envision what comes after Trump or, alternately, build new institutions
- Strategic civil disobedience
I briefly considered how these categories overlap, in particular, the extent to which nearly all are actually building new institutions that the authors presumably would like to see outlive Trump. My own conclusion was that the need for resistance would end if Trump is defeated, but the non-resistance activities would continue and (hopefully) become new institutions. A few categories that authors do not classify as resistance also would probably not be expected to survive Trump. That is a strong sign that these activities lap over into resistance.
But after I finished the series, another thought occurred to me. Clearly Trump won because a lot of people are not satisfied with our institutions are they are.* Which of these activities would have been worth doing even if Trump had lost.
If Trump had lost, there would still be people in need of help ant protection. The authors are proposing building institutions to do just that. Would these institutions be needed if Trump has lost?
Mutual aid society. The authors propose a mutual aid society that allows an elderly couple who can't afford to pay for a wheelchair ramp get one build by volunteers and pay it forward by offering music lessons. It offers communal meals and assists immigrants scattered by ICE raids. Is this something the authors would consider worth doing if Trump had lost? My guess is hopefully the ICE raid would not have happened if Trump had lost, but the wheelchair ramp and communal meals would still worthwhile regardless of who is in the White House. And regardless of who is in the White House, it is worthwhile build up such groups in one's local community so they have the opportunity to help out with disasters like fires, do communal tree planting, and visit seniors in retirement homes. And regardless of who holds the White House, it is worthwhile for such organizations to build a national network so that communities experiencing disasters beyond their resources, like fires and floods, can get help from other communities.
Joint emergency fund raising. The authors correctly anticipate that Trump will massively cut funds for non-profits, and recommend that non-profits join forces to raise funds and pool resources, with a focus particularly on small, local non-profits that do not have large, high profile national fundraising networks. Sounds like a good idea. Would it be a good idea even if federal funds had not been cut? I would say yes. It is never a good idea to put too many eggs in one basket, including the federal basket. The authors offer another reason why this would be a good idea, regardless of who is in the White House. Governments (local governments included) and large foundations have slow, cumbersome vetting processes that are particularly burdensome to small organizations. The authors see the need for a funding source that can move quickly, even if it leads to mistakes and mis-spent resources. Although they do not say so, presumably the authors would want the joint fundraising network to rely on a non-profit's general reputation in the community instead.
Underground Railroad. The authors envision an underground railroad moving immigrants and whistle blowers to safety. (Where?) Is this something that would be valuable if Trump has lost? I am inclined to say no. If Trump had lost, immigrants and whistle blowers would not be in the sort of danger they are in now. The four categories are not so distinct, and this protects people and engages in resistance -- a resistance we would not need if Trump has lost.
I believe and the authors foresaw that Trump poses an unprecedented threat to our institutions. There are always people in need of help regardless of who is in the White House, so the difference is one of degree, rather than kind. By contrast, the threat Trump poses to our institutions would not exist if he were not there. So, defending institutions would have a lot less urgency if he had lost. But at the same time, our institutions can always use bracing and improving. And yes, I understand that Trump's appeal is largely because people have lost faith in our institutions. Maybe if our institutions worked better people would like them more.
Organize veterans and their families. There are already lots of organizations for veterans and their families. The authors presumably intend some sort of organization to emphasis the need for the military to stay out of partisan politics and refuse unlawful orders. And I do agree that a lot of our military rank and file are much too Trumpy. Still, I just don't see the same danger if Trump had lost and am inclined to think this sort of thing laps over into resistance and would not be appropriate if Trump had lost.
Help the EPA as a citizen scientist. Trump's attacks on regulatory agencies in general and the EPA in particular were wholly foreseeable, and the authors foresaw it. I Trump has lost, the EPA would be in a lot better condition. But still, it would be overstretched and could use the help of citizen scientists doing environmental testing and offering guidance on where the problems are.
 |
| Map of counties in the US |
These are the reforms that the authors favor. They would presumably favor exactly the same reforms if Trump had lost, although the impetus for them would presumably be less.
Cultural grounding. This one is also a bit vague. It involves "healing circles" and musicians, body workers, poets, and healing practices. The authors shed more light in this in the closing thoughts video, expressing the view that ultimately it is shifts in our overall culture that determine our future. That seems reasonable. And it would be equally important to make regardless of who is in the White House, even if dealing with Trump means greater urgency.
Constitutional Convention. It seems a safe assumption the proposed reforms are things that have been circulating long before Trump came to power. Suggestions include eliminating money from politics, limiting terms for judges and senators, ending secret holds and the filibuster, breaking apart the two-party system (how?), and creating a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. These sound popular (except, perhaps, for that last). The real-world consequences are hard to predict. If you favor these reforms, you would probably favor them regardless of whether Trump came to power or not. Even the convention format is an option regardless of who is in the White House, though dealing with Trump might serve as a spur to action.
The authors also appear to advocate educating participants in other democratic processes as part of the convention. They want to teach the public that democracy requires education and participation as well as representation. And they want to teach participatory budgeting, which means first listening and learning, second making and discussing proposals, and finally voting on proposals. The authors envision almost as many people turning out to the convention as to an election. Although the book does not say so, presumably the authors envision people applying these lessons in other areas of their lives. And all I can say is that I certainly agree that it would be valuable to teach people how our system of government actually works and how to listen and engage in rational debate. Our country would be a whole lot better off for it. I just don't know how feasible it all is.
I think the authors need to face the fact that there is a limit to how much democracy most people can stomach. Democracy requires participation, after all, and most people have lives -- families, jobs, interests, and other things they would rather be doing. And the activists who really want to devote their lives to participating often had beliefs well out of step with the general public, and often don't realize that.
This is the part that is clearly geared to our democracy being in danger and is generally not appropriate under more normal circumstances (such as if Trump had lost).
Paperclip Movement. While it is somewhat unclear what this is, it appears to be a semi-secret organization of civil servants pledged not to obey any illegal or unconstitutional order. We have -- or at least had -- a wide range of safeguards in place that were supposed to do this anyhow, such as civil service protections or whistle blower protections. It is quite alarming how quickly Trump has managed to cast these aside and is treating the government as his own private police. Maybe such and organization would be useful now, maybe not. But if Trump had lost I think we could continue to rely on existing protections and such an organization would not be appropriate.
Strike committee. The authors envision a general strike to keep Trump from stealing the election. Desperate times call for desperate measures. But the authors generally do seem to see the strike committee as long-term institution. At least they endorse "a movement that keeps up regular protests and occasional strikes." Um, I disagree. The use of strikes as a tool of political pressure can lead to messy disruptions and ultimately rightwing backlash. Yes, I understand that desperate times can call for desperate measures, and that planning and preparation is needed. But I would not favor a strike committee if Trump has lost.
Tax resistance. No. We are getting into Sovereign Citizen territory here. I would oppose it even in response to Trump except under the most extreme circumstances. It would definitely not be reasonable or appropriate if Trump had lost.
In short:
I believe the non-resistance proposals all in one way or another are creating new institutions that would be valuable (though less urgent) if Trump had lost. The resistance part is best seen as a response to Trump's threat to democracy and not appropriate under more normal circumstances -- either if he had lost or if he is defeated. And I regard the underground railroad and anti-Trump military/veteran organizations as partaking enough of resistance that I prefer to reserve them for serious peril and not for more normal circumstances.
And now I really need to quit this habit.
____________________________________________________
*Which is not to say I necessarily think these things could prevent future Trumps. I think it is clear that a certain percent of his followers are simply bigots who can't stand the demographic changes our country is experiencing and want to reverse them. Others are entitled assholes who can't stand the idea that rules apply to them. But some are soft supporters who were just upset about the economy and others, I think, feel alienated by a sense that they are isolated and powerless, surrounded by huge institutions that don't care about them and that are out of their control. I think some of these measures just might blunt economic hardship or give people a better sense of control in their lives.
