Tag Archives: resistance

A Battle Plan

Twice in the month of April, thousands of people turned out to protest the Trump coup. Here in Red Indiana, thousands gathered on April 5th and again on the 19th, despite cold, rainy weather. They gathered with clever (and not-so-clever) signs, and with determination (some in wheelchairs or with walkers). They came with small children and elderly parents. And they came in surprisingly large numbers.

There are plenty of nay-sayers who dismiss protests of this sort as wasted effort. They’re wrong, for a number of reasons. At the very least, those of us who have participated in these events come away with heightened resolve, recognizing that our concerns and anger are widely shared, that we stand in solidarity with others who are determined to protect what I have called The American Idea.

There are many avenues that citizens can use to resist and hopefully defeat a national turn to autocracy. In a recent Bulwark article, J.V. Last published a “battle plan for dissidents.” That plan was “half mass mobilization and half asymmetric warfare,” in recognition that– during the coming year– such tactics “will matter more than traditional political messaging as it has been practiced here in living memory.”

Last lists eight recommended tactics:

  1. Demonstrate popular power in the provinces through large-scale rallies.
  2. Use these events to organize the resistance into a mass movement that can be called into action.
  3. Direct the mass movement into targeted political strikes: Getting blowout wins in special elections; boycotts of Tesla; etc.
  4. Politicize everything: Attack the authoritarians for every bad thing that happens, anywhere in the world. Flood the zone.
  5. Elevate the corruption/graft in a way that pits the billionaire insiders against the “forgotten man.”
  6. When the moment is right, bring this movement to the Capital for a show of strength.
  7. Use this demonstration as a slingshot to take back legislative power in the 2026 elections.
  8. More importantly, use it to send a message to the institutional actors that people will have their back if they show courage..

While I agree with all eight, it is important to recognize that numbers 1, 2, and 8 are dependent upon the sorts of peaceful mass demonstrations we’re now experiencing. Large turnouts by everyday Americans of the sort we are seeing are a demonstration of power–people who are willing to get off their couches, create signs, gather and march with others are people who will cast ballots in upcoming elections.

The mechanisms used to inform citizens of these upcoming demonstrations will also serve as the initial organizing machinery for further actions–boycotts or strikes, for example. (I will note that those mechanisms need to be greatly expanded; significant numbers of people, many of whom would have been likely to participate, remained totally unaware of April’s protests. As the grass-roots groups sponsoring these events build out their informational webs, that will undoubtedly change.)

But Number 8 is by far the most important of the three identified purposes of these mass protests.

We would not be in the position we’re in if the GOP invertebrates We the People have elected to Congress were doing their jobs. Granted, some of these officials are as bigoted and ignorant as the current administration. Some are “out and proud” White Christian Nationalists rejecting modernity and enthusiastically applauding the destruction of the federal government. (Here in Indiana, that cohort includes Senator Jim Banks.) But a significant number of those elected officials have placed their ability to retain their positions–and escape the ire of the would-be King–over their obligations to the Constitution and fidelity to their oaths of office.

It is that latter group of “institutional actors” that can be moved by mass public demonstrations–by evidence that large numbers of their constituents will “have their backs” if they oppose the ongoing coup, but will vote against them if they continue to cower. (Are you listening, Senator Young?)

There is one other value to these gatherings that the essay failed to note, probably because it is hard to document, and that’s the informational value inherent in such events. In a world where people get their information from wildly disparate sources, significant numbers of Americans remain unaware of the actions of this administration and the very dangerous implications of those actions. When fellow citizens protest in great numbers, some of the uninformed will encounter information they didn’t previously have.

For that matter, protestors angered by specific issues are frequently unaware of the full range of Trump’s bad actions, given their rapidity and number. The speeches and signs at mass events expand participants’ understanding of the threats we face.

Education occurs in many venues. Protests are one of them.

Comments

The Time Is Now

I woke up yesterday to heartening news: the liberal candidate had won the race for Wisconsin’s high court, and won it handily, despite the twenty-five million dollars spent by Elon Musk to support her opponent. (Actually, that is an inaccurate statement–she won, at least partly, thanks to Musk’s obscene financial support of her opponent.) And although Democrats lost the special races in Florida, they vastly over-performed in those deep Red districts.

Cory Booker had just stepped down from making the longest recorded speech in Senate history–a speech in which he laid out the myriad dangers posed by a lawless and enthusiastically corrupt administration.

News of these events came as civic activism has continued to rise. Town halls across the country have been filled with angry Americans. As I write this, a nationwide protest warning the administration to keep its Hands Off our governing institutions and constitutional order is scheduled for this Saturday, April 5th. That event will join an unprecedented number of prior protests: the Harvard Crowd Counting Consortium reports that “in 2025 our research shows that street protests today are far more numerous and frequent than skeptics might suggest.” In fact, “since 22 January, we’ve seen more than twice as many street protests than took place during the same period eight years ago.”

There’s a tendency to discount the impact of these gatherings, but they are extremely important: not only do they offer “aid and comfort” to citizens who might otherwise consider themselves alone in their righteous anger, research confirms that such events make both participants and onlookers much more likely to vote.

I’m not aware of any research documenting the effect of lengthy and impassioned Senate speeches, but it certainly seems that the incredible performance by Cory Booker on the Senate floor should resonate with the millions of Americans who are disheartened and terrified by the daily disasters caused by this insane administration–and  evidently it did. The Hill reported that more than 350 million people had liked Sen. Cory Booker’s floor speech on TikTok live as he approached 25 hours, and according to the Washington Post, before he was through, his speech had been liked on TikTok 400 million times.

Those are stunning–and heartening– numbers.

There was a lot to like in Booker’s oration, as Heather Cox Richardson reported. Booker began by invoking John Lewis’ admonition to make “good trouble.”

Standing for the next 25 hours and 5 minutes, without a break to use the restroom and pausing only when colleagues asked questions to enable him to rest his voice, Booker called out the Trump administration’s violations of the Constitution and detailed the ways in which the administration is hurting Americans. Farmers have lost government contracts, putting them in a financial crisis. Cuts to environmental protections that protect clean air and water are affecting Americans’ health. Housing is unaffordable, and the administration is making things worse. Cuts to education and medical research and national security breaches have made Americans less safe. The regime accidentally deported a legal resident because of “administrative error” and now says it cannot get him back.

Booker ended his marathon speech by reminding listeners that, in America, We the People are sovereign.

It starts with the people of the United States of America—that’s how this country started: ‘We the people.’ Let’s get back to the ideals that others are threatening, let’s get back to our founding documents…. Those imperfect geniuses had some very special words at the end of the Declaration of Independence…when our founders said we must mutually pledge, pledge to each other ‘our lives, our fortunes, and our Sacred Honor.’ We need that now from all Americans. This is a moral moment. It’s not left or right, it’s right or wrong.

Millions of Americans are recognizing the truth–and the import–of that last sentence.

We are not engaged in political policy disputes. The folks offering admonitions about “listening to MAGA’s discontents,” or “finding middle ground” have missed what has become ever more obvious, missed the point with which Booker concluded. The choice we face is not between policies A and B and policies C and D. We are not choosing between efficiency and waste. What we face is a stark choice between Constitutional governance and autocracy, between human-kindness and cruelty, between destruction and continuity, between progress toward civic equality and a return to the 1950s and Jim Crow. For Christian Americans, it’s a choice between actual Christianity and Christian Nationalism. For women, it’s a choice between individual autonomy and “the problem that has no name.”

This is a moral moment.

Comments

How Resistance Succeeds

The number of protests has been skyrocketing nationally. Does it matter?

I described the massive turnouts at Town Halls in Indianapolis last week to my youngest son; he responded “for all the good it will do,” dismissing the effectiveness of such events. But there is scholarship showing that non-violent protests by a sufficient percentage of the population have succeeded in overcoming autocracies elsewhere.

And what is a “sufficient percentage”? Three and a half percent of the population!

If turnout at the past week’s nationwide town halls is any indication, reaching three-and-a-half percent should be very do-able. According to Google, there were 340 million Americans as of 2024. Three and a half percent would mean that we need to turn out 11 million 900 thousand nonviolent protestors.

The pre-eminent researcher in the field of protest efficacy is Erica Chenoweth of Harvard, who co-authored the book, “Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict.” In the linked interview, she explained why civil resistance campaigns that are non-violent attract many more people than violent insurrections like the horrifying one we saw on January 6th (as she notes, it’s in part it’s because there’s a much lower barrier to participation compared with picking up a weapon). It isn’t sheer numbers, of course–she explains the other factors that were necessary to successful resistances in the countries she’s studied.

There are four of them:

The first is a large and diverse participation that’s sustained.

The second thing is that [the movement] needs to elicit loyalty shifts among security forces in particular, but also other elites. Security forces are important because they ultimately are the agents of repression, and their actions largely decide how violent the confrontation with — and reaction to — the nonviolent campaign is going to be in the end. But there are other security elites, economic and business elites, state media. There are lots of different pillars that support the status quo, and if they can be disrupted or coerced into noncooperation, then that’s a decisive factor.

The third thing is that the campaigns need to be able to have more than just protests; there needs to be a lot of variation in the methods they use.

The fourth thing is that when campaigns are repressed — which is basically inevitable for those calling for major changes — they don’t either descend into chaos or opt for using violence themselves. If campaigns allow their repression to throw the movement into total disarray or they use it as a pretext to militarize their campaign, then they’re essentially co-signing what the regime wants — for the resisters to play on its own playing field. And they’re probably going to get totally crushed.

As she notes–and as the emerging American resistance has found– protesting can take many forms other than street demonstrations.

People have done things like bang pots and pans or go on electricity strikes or something otherwise disruptive that imposes costs on the regime even while people aren’t outside. Staying inside for an extended period equates to a general strike. Even limited strikes are very effective. There were limited and general strikes in Tunisia and Egypt during their uprisings and they were critical.

Chenoweth cautions that preparation for most of these methods is essential, noting that successful strikes or other methods of economic noncooperation have often been preceded by months of stockpiling food, coming up with strike funds, or finding other ways to engage  community mutual aid while the strike is underway. Here in the U.S., organizations like Indivisible have demonstrated that capacity for planning and organization, and together with other grassroots organization, they’ve proven their ability to turn out large numbers of citizens.

What is so encouraging about Chenoweth’s findings is that “large numbers” does not equate to “large percentages.” As she says,

a surprisingly small proportion of the population guarantees a successful campaign: just 3.5 percent. That sounds like a really small number, but in absolute terms it’s really an impressive number of people. In the U.S., it would be around 11.5 million people today. Could you imagine if 11.5 million people — that’s about three times the size of the 2017 Women’s March — were doing something like mass noncooperation in a sustained way for nine to 18 months? Things would be totally different in this country.

April 5th should provide us with an initial indication of whether engaging that percentage will be possible. On April 5th, Indivisible and several allied organizations are mounting a nation-wide Day of Action, telling this lawless administration “Hands off our healthcare, our social security, our democracy!” Here in Indianapolis, it will take place at the Statehouse, from noon to 4:00.

I plan to be there, and hope to see many of my local readers.

Comments

Can Trump/Musk Take Us Back?

At the base of the Trump/Musk war on American values is the question whether the cultural progress we’ve made really can be rolled back–whether the effort to excise references to women and minorities from government websites and bully corporations and universities into abandoning “woke” DEI efforts can successfully return the country to White Christian male dominance. No matter what other excuses are offered by Trump voters, it is that goal that elected Donald Trump.

Call me Pollyanna, but I don’t think it will be successful.

I don’t want to minimize the significance of Trump’s assault on our government and our Constitution–an assault conducted by a senile, intellectually-limited and very greedy man. (His elevation to an office for which he is manifestly unfit was a result of the MAGA bigotry he very clearly shares, but it facilitated his increasingly overt corruption. Want a favor from this autocrat? Buy enough of his “meme coins” and I’m sure he’ll be favorably disposed….)

I understand that what we face is frightening.

That said, America’s culture really has moved on from the bad old days. I’ve lived through the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, the gay rights movement and the sexual revolution, and I can attest to the fact that the social environment we inhabit today (at least in cities…and probably even in most rural precincts) is considerably different than the one I was born into.

I thought about how far those changes have taken us when I went with members of my (mixed religion) family to a St. Patrick’s Day celebration at Indianapolis’ Athenaeum–a magnificent edifice that once served as home for our city’s pro-Nazi German American bund. It was a mob scene of Black, White and Asian folks wearing green, and I couldn’t help thinking how far the Irish have come from the early days of Irish immigration, when native-born “real” Americans criticized Irish immigrants for  their supposed laziness and lack of discipline, their public drinking style, their religion, and their presumed capacity for criminality and violence. (Sound familiar?)

Today, Americans from a wide variety of backgrounds–including our local German establishments– don green clothes and drink green beer to celebrate St. Patrick’s day.

It isn’t just the integration of Irish and German immigrants. Over the past half-century, Blacks and women have become increasingly prominent parts of the workforce and the political world, intermarriages between people of different races and religions have soared, gay folks have come out and married…and while we’re still adjusting our attitudes about people who identify as trans, understanding and acceptance are infinitely higher than they once were.

That cultural progress has produced major changes in both law and public opinion. As the Brookings Institution has noted, it’s not 1968 anymore. “Seventy-six percent of Americans now say that discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities in the United States is a “big problem,” including 57% of conservatives, 71% of whites, and 69% of whites without college degrees. Pew Research has found that  large shares of Americans recognize the existence of discrimination against minorities. “About eight-in-ten see discrimination against Muslims and Jews, as well as against Arab, Black and Hispanic people.” That percentage is considerably higher than those who believe–with MAGA and Donald Trump– that efforts at equity  discriminate against White Christians.

The electoral successes of MAGA Republicans would have been impossible but for the frantic resistance of  White Christian Evangelicals to these cultural changes. While the rest of us have been going about our daily lives, accepting (and often applauding) the changes in the culture, White Christian Nationalists have mounted a determined resistance. They are not a majority of Americans, but the real majority–the rest of us– have large differences in ideology and political identity. The cultish coherence of MAGA’s resentments and anger have allowed them to amass far more power than their raw numbers would entitle them to.

THE question that confronts us now is whether those of us who applaud–or at least accept– America’s social and cultural changes can resist the Trump/MAGA efforts to return us to a much meaner time.

Can those of us in the majority– Black and White, Hispanic and Asian, Jew and Muslim and atheist, the civically active and the politically apathetic– come together and resist the intense rage of the White Christian Nationalists? Can we ignore our very real differences and work together toward the shared goal of protecting the American Idea and restoring constitutional government?

If we can all be Irish on St. Patrick’s day, this Pollyanna thinks we can.

Comments

Makes Me Proud To Be A Lawyer!

Okay, a recovering lawyer…but still.

One of the worst aspects of this traitorous and criminal administration has been its willingness to spit in the eye of those who believe in and support the rule of law. After a period of stunned silence, lawyers who have retained their integrity have begun to respond. 

Above the Law has reported on a lawsuit that–as it says–“Drags the Trump Administratiion to Hell.” I am going to quote liberally from the complaint filed by Williams Connolly on behalf of another law firm–Perkins Coie–because I cannot improve on its language. Trump had issued one of his insane “Executive Orders,” purportedly stripping Perkins Coie lawyers of security clearances, and terminating government contracts with the firm.

From the Complaint:

The Order is an affront to the Constitution and our adversarial system of justice. Its plain purpose is to bully those who advocate points of view that the President perceives as adverse to the views of his Administration, whether those views are presented on behalf of paying or pro bono clients. Perkins Coie brings this case reluctantly. The firm is comprised of lawyers who advocate for clients; its attorneys and employees are not activists or partisans. But Perkins Coie’s ability to represent the interests of its clients—and its ability to operate as a legal-services business at all—are under direct and imminent threat. Perkins Coie cannot allow its clients to be bullied. The firm is committed to a resolute defense of the rule of law, without regard to party or ideology, and therefore brings this lawsuit to declare the Order unlawful and to enjoin its implementation.

The document notes that the Order’s “peculiar title” demonstrates that its purpose isn’t executive. “Rather, the Order reflects a purpose that is judicial—to adjudicate whether a handful of lawyers at Perkins Coie LLP engaged in misconduct in the course of litigation and then to punish them.” The purpose is, rather clearly, to deter law firms from representing clients antagonistic to Trump.

Above the Law judges the following lengthy paragraph to be the hardest-hitting:

Because the Order in effect adjudicates and punishes alleged misconduct by Perkins Coie, it is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. Because it does so without notice and an opportunity to be heard, and because it punishes the entire firm for the purported misconduct of a handful of lawyers who are not employees of the firm, it is an unconstitutional violation of procedural due process and of the substantive due process right to practice one’s professional livelihood. Because the Order singles out Perkins Coie, it denies the firm the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Order punishes the firm for the clients with which it has been associated and the legal positions it has taken on matters of election law, the Order constitutes retaliatory viewpoint discrimination and, therefore, violates the First Amendment rights of free expression and association, and the right to petition the government for redress. Because the Order compels disclosure of confidential information revealing the firm’s relationships with its clients, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order retaliates against Perkins Coie for its diversity-related speech, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order is vague in proscribing what is prohibited “diversity, equity and inclusion,” it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Order works to brand Perkins Coie as persona non grata and bar it from federal buildings, deny it the ability to communicate with federal employees, and terminate the government contracts of its clients, the Order violates the right to counsel afforded by the Fifth and Sixth Amendment.

It isn’t just the lawyers.

While the legal profession takes to the courts, other Americans possessing specialized expertise are using that expertise on behalf of the resistance. Heather Cox Richardson recently reported on three recent outages of X, spanning more than six hours. She cited the former head of the United Kingdom’s National Cyber Security Center, who said that the outages appear to have been an attack called a “distributed denial of service,” attack– “an old technique in which hackers flood a server to prevent authentic users from reaching a website.” He added that he couldn’t “think of a company of the size and standing internationally of X that’s fallen over to a DDoS attack for a very long time,” adding that the outage “doesn’t reflect well on their cyber security.” (Musk, of course, blamed hackers in Ukraine for the outages, an accusation Martin called “pretty much garbage.”)

I think the resistance is just getting started…

Comments