How should we resist Trump?
Michelle Goldberg has a sobering piece (gift link) on what she expects from a second Trump presidency. Her biggest fear is that Trump will undertake a large-scale roundup of unauthorized immigrants. Goldberg expects large protests in response to roundups, possibly followed by violent repression of protesters by the military.
I agree that this is both reasonably likely and a horrifying prospect, although we do not know how aggressively Trump will pursue it.*
In any event, if Trump opts for an aggressive round-up of unauthorized immigrants, what can the opposition do besides protest? What type of protest is likely to be most effective? For example, is it possible to organize a work boycott by unauthorized immigrants and their supporters? A work boycott would be impossible to defeat with police or the military. People would be at home, not gathered together and vulnerable to arrest or violence. And if it was successful at scale, a work boycott might force Trump to reckon up front with the economic costs of large-scale deportation. Would Democratic leaders be able and willing to organize and lead such a response? Would there be a backlash against a work boycott?
I’m sure there are lots of other possibilities here. I don’t know what the answer is. I just hope smart people are thinking about this, and that our response, whatever it is, is informed by research and experience, including experience in other countries, not wishful thinking or blind moral outrage.
*On the aggressive end of the spectrum, Trump might order a large-scale roundup of millions using the military. At the other end, he might settle for (say) a targeted effort to identify and deport criminals using ICE in a way consistent with existing law.
There will be strong pressure from fascists, racists, and nativists within his administration pushing for a maximalist policy, but a large-scale round-up might provoke strong resistance from the Courts (we can always hope) and from parts of the business community, as well as from the public, and it might have immediate negative economic effects that Trump would rather avoid. So I am not sure how aggressively Trump will pursue his anti-immigrant plans, but I doubt Trump would settle for a minimalist, performative policy.
PS: for those who missed it, I responded to a comment on my last post as follows:
What does it mean for Trump to “steal” the election? He is not currently in power, so he cannot steal the election using the force of the state. Instead, he would steal it using the legal system, relying on partisan decisions by the Supreme Court. Just yesterday we got an example of what this might look like. The Court allowed Virginia Governor Youngkin to continue voter purges despite a federal law prohibiting such purges in the 90 days before an election. There was no written explanation for the decision, but we know the Court is perfectly capable of ginning up legalistic-sounding decisions for its preferred policy outcomes and candidates.
Suppose the Court throws the election to Trump, using rigged logic and motivated reasoning, another Bush v. Gore or worse. What happens then? By far the most likely outcome is that Trump becomes president. (One alternative is for Biden to defy the Court and somehow try to install Harris as president. How likely is that? What other alternatives are there? Will the Court or Trump back down in the face of protests? Yes, that’s a rhetorical question.)
So at this point Trump is president. Now he controls the apparatus of the state. At this point, if Trump follows through on some of his most violent and dangerous promises, those of us who oppose him need to rely on the support of those who took Trump literally but not seriously [should be: seriously not literally]. The way to win their support is not through violent, disruptive, or divisive protest. It is by appealing to the better angels of their nature. There is no guarantee this will work; sometimes democracies fail, sometimes innocent people are killed or imprisoned or deported. My only claim is that it is more likely to work than violent or divisive protests that make Trump’s less extreme supporters feel threatened.
Stop paying your mortgage or rent. If enough people did this the whole financial system would collapse. It would only take about 10% if 2008 is a guide. I don’t know how the government (tRump) would handle this. Walking down the street with a sign does no good. The wealthy look out the window of their ivory tower and laugh at the losers below.
@Mark,
LOL! If you stop paying rent or mortgage, you’ll be evicted. If you refuse to pay rent or mortgage, you’ll be homeless. It’s hard to have a job if you’re homeless. If you don’t have a job, how will you pay for food and healthcare? If you have kids, how will you shelter and feed them?
What color is the sky in your world?
It takes several months or longer to be foreclosed on or evicted. The financial system house of cards will collapse long before the judicial system handles the fallout from non payment. And what will the banking system do with all the vacant properties?
@Mark,
Given the dramatic decline in union membership and collective bargaining since the ’60s, your proposal seems . . . quaint. At least strikes were undertaken to increase pay and benefits, not to destroy the company. The idea that renters and homeowners with mortgages would withhold payments–a form of strike–in order to destroy the biggest single national economy on the planet gets points for imagination, but is unmoored from reality.
Destroying a national economy in order to build a different one did work for the Bolsheviks and for Mao, but those both involved impoverished agrarian societies that had been under the boot of monarchies. Those models have no relevance to 21st century America. And when you look at what came after, I don’t see anything to envy.