The Donald J. Trump Presidency

“Destruction and violence are contrary to progressive values and have no place in our community,” his statement said. “I support those who peacefully come together in pursuit of a just and inclusive country that stands united with our immigrant population and the many others who are being targeted in this national political climate. Unfortunately, last night, a small minority of the protesters who had assembled in opposition to a speaking engagement featuring a prominent white nationalist engaged in violence and property damage. They also provided the ultra-nationalist far right exactly the images they want to use to try to discredit the vast majority of peaceful protesters in Berkeley and across America who are deeply concerned about where our country is heading.”

Watching things unfold in Berkeley last night left me feeling the most terrified and despondent I've been since Trump got elected. I watched fellow progressives pat themselves on the back for what may prove a Pyrrhic victory of historic proportions. By geographically and philosophically positioning protests in opposition to the remarks of an individual provocateur, Berkeley self-sabotaged a key opportunity to refute an appalling ideology as a whole--rather than just a single articulation of that ideology. The left will be paying for the outcome of this wholly justified, but poorly planned protest for a very long time to come. We need to protest, but we need to protest more intelligently and strategically.

I am passionate about resisting a slide into fascism and I understand why many believe it necessary to do so by violent means. But we must understand that to violently resist or overthrow the American government would be to attempt to salvage our democracy by destroying it first. This is not likely to end well. It is true that the majority of Americans did not support Trump and that a growing proportion disapprove of him. But that doesn't mean that anywhere near a majority are on board with West Coast ultra-liberal notions about violent resistance. If we are pushing for a violent uprising that the majority of Americans do not support, then we are also acting counter to democratic principles.

It is also historically unwise to engage in a violent uprising if the other side has more guns. It is even less wise if the other side has the support of the military. Making physical might the ultimate key to American power would almost certainly put us on the losing side of any confrontation and accelerate a slide into dictatorship. Many a revolution has ended in a government that was equally if not more oppressive than the one overthrown.

So what are we to do? How do we push back on this administration without pushing away the people we need to win back political power? All of this is easier said than done, and there is no magic bullet. But in all things we must be strategic. The right is playing three-dimensional chess while the left plays Taboo. People like Milo Yiannopoulos, Steve Bannon, and Kellyanne Conway are thinking three and four moves ahead. We must learn to do the same.

When we plan protests, we need to position them for success. That means explicit calls for non-violence and avoiding locations, times of day, and protest formats that give cover to violent elements. This is why the Women's March chose the day after the inauguration--the organizers of the march understood the potential pitfalls of protesting on inauguration day and deftly avoided them. The UC Berkeley protest could have done the same by taking place earlier in the day and/or far away from the site of Milo's hateful talk. That way, even if the Black Bloc showed up to make mayhem, it would have been much clearer that the majority of protesters had nothing to do with that brand of violence. These agitators could maybe even have been stopped, had they not had a larger crowd to blend in with.

If we want to stop Trump's agenda now, we must also go beyond coastal/urban protests to reach moderates and swing voters. They are the ones who we most need to be calling their representatives. (Calling Barbara Lee to reinforce the resistance she is already engaging in is not going to move the national policy needle.) Our arguments against Trump's policies need to be not just principled, but also emotionally intuitive and impactful. I deeply value arguments based in fact, logic, and rationality, but we have to understand the value of emotion and gut feeling in at least getting a foot in the door.

We also need to enlist the help of mammoth corporations that have mostly sat on the sidelines of American politics. The idea of a Google, an Apple, or a Facebook inserting itself into the political process is not without risk. But we and our democracy face immediate threats that perhaps call for taking these risks, and neutrality/inaction can be political positions unto themselves. We should be pushing these companies to use their platforms to express the importance of equality and diversity in the delivery of the products and services they provide. Imagine the impact if Google, Apple, and Facebook put up matching screen overlays that said "Immigrants, LGBT people, and people of all religions and colors make our products and services possible. We support equality, diversity, and fairness for all. Click here to learn more and to let your representative known that you share these values."

These suggestions may be idealistic and incomplete, but I believe strongly that they represent the direction we must go if we are to win back our democracy and build a better future.

chrondog wrote:Fuck it. There is no means of gauging if an action was "effective" or not within 15 minutes of it happening. We can't say that people are watching this at home, judging, waiting to vote Republican again. The current political discourse is 100% headline trolling and the left is winning headlines by being in the streets, being at airports, punching Nazis, and fucking shit up. DEFINE OUR SIDE. Stand against something. You don't need to commit violence or support it. I won't be violent or high five people that do. But I will understand them and understand that their tactics can be effective. And I hope our issues win.

I have always been a massive free speech person and don't intrinsically see the value is stopping someone like Milo from speaking on a campus. If I were organizing I might have done much the opposite--ignoring the fuck out of his talk and hosting a more inclusive, parallel talk at the same time. But I can't deny the times we live in and the feelings of real people. "HATE SPEECH IS FREE SPEECH" is such an absolutely twisted interpretation of what free speech means. "Free speech" is intended to be political speech against institutions. This is about existential threats veiled as ideology. This shit fucking scares people. People at Berkeley all know people who are undocumented and have probably heard stories of someone who is already in jeopardy of being separated from their family. Milo has openly bragged about calling ICE on undocumented immigrants. He's a complete shithead. He is on team Trump, even if he would try to distance himself from any particular movement because all he really cares about is his own brand and profitability. Any victory against team Trump I will support. Any inch we can take back against ANYONE who would ever let Donald Trump run this country should be fought for. They're gonna shred our laws and bend the Constitution--our only recourse is to pull them back in our direction until the men with riot shields stop us.

On Friday, Donald Trump signed an executive order intended to roll back Dodd-Frank, the sprawling regulatory framework President Obama signed into law in 2010 to avoid another financial crisis, which was not entirely beloved on Wall Street. He also scrapped a fiduciary rule intended to protect retirees by forcing brokers and advisers to “work in the best interest of their clients.“ (This, too, was controversial.)

According to its defenders, Dodd-Frank has been a modestly successful, if tortuous affair, requiring banks to bend over backwards to comply with regulations that protect investors and consumers from abusive practices and excessive risk. According to Trump, it was inconveniencing his friends:

“There is nobody better to tell me about Dodd-Frank than [JP Morgan C.E.O.] Jamie [Dimon]. So he has to tell me about it, but we expect to be cutting a lot from Dodd-Frank because, frankly, I have so many people, friends of mine, that have nice businesses, they can’t borrow money,” Trump said Friday morning, shortly before signing the executive orders. “They just can’t get any money because the banks just won’t let them borrow because of the rules and regulations in Dodd-Frank.”

And here’s how Gary Cohn, Goldman Sachs president turned White House National Economic Council Director made the case for getting rid of the fiduciary rule unveiled last spring:

“We think it is a bad rule. It is a bad rule for consumers. This is like putting only healthy food on the menu, because unhealthy food tastes good but you still shouldn’t eat it because you might die younger.”

Nick wrote:At this point any Republican is a complete shit bag to me and I can only view them as my enemy.

As with most conservative political things, Betsy DeVos will ironically hurt many of the people who support her most. "School choice" (commonly referred to as "total bullshit") and state-run education will hurt red states that receive federal funds and have poor curricular standards. Those children will be less able to find jobs, will get on welfare, and then still complain about government assistance. This is what is known as the "right wing conspiracy". Conservatives ensure government doesn't work then complain that government doesn't work. Betsy DeVos is the embodiment of this ethos. Hopefully we can protect our liberal states and cities with robust standards and support for public education. Have a good day everyone!