FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

In Defense of Protesting Donald Trump

The liberal establishment is positioning itself against anti-Trump protests across the country. Commentators, like the Daily Show’s Trevor Noah, are now calling for restraint, asserting that the recent protests and shutdowns are counterproductive and ultimately undermine the interests of Trump’s opposition.

I have a few thoughts on this.

First, if you are not among the groups of people most viciously dehumanized—and, really, targeted for worse—by Trump and his campaign, you probably have no business issuing such a critique. Seemingly, the current protest tactics are being employed, foremost, by immigrants and People of Color. It is these groups that, in the face of Trump’s campaign, rely on collective resistance to maintain dignity and well being. At this point, you need to make a choice. Are you going to stand with them or undermine them? I know I’ll be doing what I can to support these efforts, even if that means having difficult conversations with milquetoast liberals and progressives about why anti-Trump actions are reasonable and appropriate.

Next, the matter of these protests is not a free speech issue—at least not in the particular way it’s being presented. “Free speech,” strictly speaking, refers to how governments mediate and block the speech of citizens. What we have with the anti-Trump protests is citizens standing up to another citizen. (Though one might argue that Trump is more an agent of the state at this point, which further complicates these claims of a “free speech” issue.)

Let’s break down what’s really happening with these actions. The protesters are essentially using speech to challenge antagonistic, opposing speech from Trump. What gives the protest actions weight is simply the fact that large numbers of people back them, saying “dehumanizing others is unacceptable” or “Trump’s bigotry is not welcome here,” etc. There is nothing wrong with that.

And remember, even if protesters were to shut down every single Trump event, the man would still be capable of disseminating his toxic message without breaking a sweat. He would still have all of the US corporate news-media to use as a soapbox. He would still have his billions of dollars to promote his campaign for the presidency. The people standing up to Trump don’t have those things. By protesting, they’re simply doing what’s needed to do to allow for their speech to be heard. Without the protests, Trump would proceed to denigrate them without challenge and further erase their message. In this way, the protests actually promote a higher standard of free speech.

What’s more, the movement most insistently labeling the protests as a free speech issue—the US conservative movement—is one which regularly uses brazen and violent tactics that actually squelch free speech. Remember when a bunch of right-wing goons shut down the national dialogue on universal health care by showing up to town hall meetings across the country with firearms? Remember how the US conservative movement routinely calls for violent state repression in response to social justice movements like Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street? What about the treatment of peaceful protesters at Donald Trump events?

These people are not serious about free speech. They wield the concept, selectively, to amplify their own voices and silence their opposition.

And consider this grim reality: the right’s brazen, heavy-handed tactics work. The US conservative movement, from its grassroots to elected officials, fights for exactly what it wants—tooth and nail. And its successes reflect that. The outcomes are horrendous, yes, but conservatives have for decades earned what they’ve sought. They understand how the system works.

Meanwhile, liberals and progressives have consistently lauded themselves for being more politically “sensible” and “reasonable”—more open to compromise. But where has it gotten us?

Well, the US is currently embroiled in several foreign imperial wars; our social programs have been decimated; structural racism infects our society from top to bottom; we still have an exclusionist for-profit health care system; we’re driving a global ecological crisis; we live in an economy characterized by malignant wealth inequality and widespread poverty; our infrastructure is crumbling; and our drinking water grows evermore toxic.

So, do you want to keep playing the game of “pragmatism”—i.e. pandering liberal and conservative establishments—and continue losing? Or do you want to stand firm, back what is right without equivocation, and take a real shot at finally stopping this madness?

Now is the time to make that choice.

More articles by:

December 19, 2018
Carl Boggs
Russophobia and the Specter of War
Jonathan Cook
American Public’s Backing for One-State Solution Falls on Deaf Ears
Daniel Warner
1968: The Year That Will Not Go Away
Arshad Khan
Developing Country Issues at COP24 … and a Bit of Good News for Solar Power and Carbon Capture
Kenneth Surin
Trump’s African Pivot: Another Swipe at China
Patrick Bond
South Africa Searches for a Financial Parachute, Now That a $170 Billion Foreign Debt Cliff Looms
Tom Clifford
Trade for Hostages? Trump’s New Approach to China
Binoy Kampmark
May Days in Britain
John Feffer
Globalists Really Are Ruining Your Life
John O'Kane
Drops and the Dropped: Diversity and the Midterm Elections
December 18, 2018
Charles Pierson
Where No Corn Has Grown Before: Better Living Through Climate Change?
Evaggelos Vallianatos
The Waters of American Democracy
Patrick Cockburn
Will Anger in Washington Over the Murder of Khashoggi End the War in Yemen?
George Ochenski
Trump is on the Ropes, But the Pillage of Natural Resources Continues
Farzana Versey
Tribals, Missionaries and Hindutva
Robert Hunziker
Is COP24 One More Big Bust?
David Macaray
The Truth About Nursing Homes
Nino Pagliccia
Have the Russian Military Aircrafts in Venezuela Breached the Door to “America’s Backyard”?
Paul Edwards
Make America Grate Again
David Rosnick
The Impact of OPEC on Climate Change
Binoy Kampmark
The Kosovo Blunder: Moving Towards a Standing Army
Andrew Stewart
Shine a Light for Immigration Rights in Providence
December 17, 2018
Susan Abulhawa
Marc Lamont Hill’s Detractors are the True Anti-Semites
Jake Palmer
Viktor Orban, Trump and the Populist Battle Over Public Space
Martha Rosenberg
Big Pharma Fights Proposal to Keep It From Looting Medicare
David Rosen
December 17th: International Day to End Violence against Sex Workers
Binoy Kampmark
The Case that Dare Not Speak Its Name: the Conviction of Cardinal Pell
Dave Lindorff
Making Trump and Other Climate Criminals Pay
Bill Martin
Seeing Yellow
Julian Vigo
The World Google Controls and Surveillance Capitalism
ANIS SHIVANI
What is Neoliberalism?
James Haught
Evangelicals Vote, “Nones” Falter
Vacy Vlanza
The Australian Prime Minister’s Rapture for Jerusalem
Martin Billheimer
Late Year’s Hits for the Hanging Sock
Weekend Edition
December 14, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
A Tale of Two Cities
Peter Linebaugh
The Significance of The Common Wind
Bruce E. Levine
The Ketamine Chorus: NYT Trumpets New Anti-Suicide Drug
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Fathers and Sons, Bushes and Bin Ladens
Kathy Deacon
Coffee, Social Stratification and the Retail Sector in a Small Maritime Village
Nick Pemberton
Praise For America’s Second Leading Intellectual
Robert Hunziker
The Yellow Vest Insurgency – What’s Next?
Nick Alexandrov
George H. W. Bush: Another Eulogy
Patrick Cockburn
The Yemeni Dead: Six Times Higher Than Previously Reported
Brian Cloughley
Principles and Morality Versus Cash and Profit? No Contest
Michael F. Duggan
Climate Change and the Limits of Reason
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail