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:
June 19, 2018
John Forte
Stuart Hall and Us
June 18, 2018
Paul Street
Denuclearize the United States? An Unthinkable Thought
John Pilger
Bring Julian Assange Home
Conn Hallinan
The Spanish Labyrinth
Patrick Cockburn
Attacking Hodeidah is a Deliberate Act of Cruelty by the Trump Administration
Gary Leupp
Trump Gives Bibi Whatever He Wants
Thomas Knapp
Child Abductions: A Conversation It’s Hard to Believe We’re Even Having
Robert Fisk
I Spoke to Palestinians Who Still Hold the Keys to Homes They Fled Decades Ago – Many are Still Determined to Return
Steve Early
Requiem for a Steelworker: Mon Valley Memories of Oil Can Eddie
Jim Scheff
Protect Our National Forests From an Increase in Logging
Adam Parsons
Reclaiming the UN’s Radical Vision of Global Economic Justice
Dean Baker
Manufacturing Production Falls in May and No One Notices
Laura Flanders
Bottom-Up Wins in Virginia’s Primaries
Binoy Kampmark
The Anguish for Lost Buildings: Embers and Death at the Victoria Park Hotel
Weekend Edition
June 15, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Dan Kovalik
The US & Nicaragua: a Case Study in Historical Amnesia & Blindness
Jeremy Kuzmarov
Yellow Journalism and the New Cold War
Charles Pierson
The Day the US Became an Empire
Jonathan Cook
How the Corporate Media Enslave Us to a World of Illusions
Ajamu Baraka
North Korea Issue is Not De-nuclearization But De-Colonization
Andrew Levine
Midterms Coming: Antinomy Ahead
Louisa Willcox
New Information on 2017 Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Deaths Should Nix Trophy Hunting in Core Habitat
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Singapore Fling
Ron Jacobs
What’s So Bad About Peace, Man?
Robert Hunziker
State of the Climate – It’s Alarming!
L. Michael Hager
Acts and Omissions: The NYT’s Flawed Coverage of the Gaza Protest
Dave Lindorff
However Tenuous and Whatever His Motives, Trump’s Summit Agreement with Kim is Praiseworthy
Robert Fantina
Palestine, the United Nations and the Right of Return
Brian Cloughley
Sabre-Rattling With Russia
Chris Wright
To Be or Not to Be? That’s the Question
David Rosen
Why Do Establishment Feminists Hate Sex Workers?
Victor Grossman
A Key Congress in Leipzig
John Eskow
“It’s All Kinderspiel!” Trump, MSNBC, and the 24/7 Horseshit Roundelay
Paul Buhle
The Russians are Coming!
Joyce Nelson
The NED’s Useful Idiots
Lindsay Koshgarian
Trump’s Giving Diplomacy a Chance. His Critics Should, Too
Louis Proyect
American Nativism: From the Chinese Exclusion Act to Trump
Stan Malinowitz
On the Elections in Colombia
Camilo Mejia
Open Letter to Amnesty International on Nicaragua From a Former Amnesty International Prisoner of Conscience
David Krieger
An Assessment of the Trump-Kim Singapore Summit
Jonah Raskin
Cannabis in California: a Report From Sacramento
Josh Hoxie
Just How Rich Are the Ultra Rich?
CJ Hopkins
Awaiting the Putin-Nazi Apocalypse
Mona Younis
We’re the Wealthiest Country on Earth, But Over 40 Percent of Us Live in or Near Poverty
Dean Baker
Not Everything Trump Says on Trade is Wrong
James Munson
Trading Places: the Other 1% and the .001% Who Won’t Save Them
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail