What Happened, What’s Next

Got Up, got out of bed. Why? To start the next round. Why? Because the fight is not over.

Trump won a very big battle. Yes, he did. No denying it. Sickening. But it wasn’t because he is stupid. It wasn’t because he’s an idiot. Is he the luckiest human ever to walk the planet? I don’t think so. Did he have some luck?  Absolutely. Is he God’s emissary? Some huckster pastors, yes. But God? Come on. Did the media again go for the quick buck, what they exist for, again offering too much Donald all the time? Yes, of course, but only a fraction of it said he’s our guy. And one of the things Trump knows is how to dominate the news cycle.

Did the Democrats fail to convince about the economy, in particular? Certainly. Could Bernie have won? I think he could have. So could Harris have tacked leftward instead of rightward and won? Maybe so. Are lots of people so fed up and alienated that saying that everything is crap and I will fix it all was good noise to make for Trump to win? Well, yes, it would seem that it was, and he knew it. Was another important factor that most of the electorate had little contact with truthful accounts, or really with any accounts at all? Yes, I believe it was.

Was there a rural versus urban divide? If you look at the maps and say that there wasn’t, you can’t see the difference between red and blue. About that divide the maps don’t lie. But urban and rural people do not have different genes. And in any event why did Trump appeal to anyone outside his small circle of friends, much less appeal so powerfully across all rural districts and quite powerfully, indeed more powerfully than last time, in many urban districts? Indeed, why did trump do well enough in urban areas to make up for the relatively lesser population in those areas? Did Trump do as well as he did because of what we have a hard time even contemplating? That is, that Trump knew what he was doing. I pick door number three. He is a lying thug, rapist, fascist, of the most worst kind, but he isn’t an idiot. At least not at selling things, including selling himself, and at reading the pulse of a room, even the biggest room.

So what the hell did Trump know? Or let’s put it this way, how did he say the seemingly idiotically self destroying things he said and blather as incoherently as he did much of the rest of the time and yet wind up not destroying but instead elevating himself?

I know there are exit polls up the kazoo. And yes, I know they show that when answering questions about a list of concerns when coming out of the polling places voters put economy and democracy first and immigration and foreign policy last with gender in the middle. But just how much does that tell us? I think not too much. And since to find out what Trump knows by tunneling into Trump’s mind seems impossible—does he really believe they eat the cats, they eat the dogs?—how about if we come at this question of what Trump knew from a different direction?

Draw a picture in your mind of what/who Trump is. Who is he to you? Draw what you see and feel him to be. Draw your take on him. Liar, rapist, racist. Bully, braggart, billionaire. Keep going with your characterization. Enabler of the rich. Disabler of the poor. Extoller of hate, ridiculer of compassion. And so on. Now imagine you are talking informally with a random Trump voter. You are getting along well. You are being honest and open with one another. You aren’t directly talking about Trump or the election. Neither of you is dismissing the other. After awhile you ask the Trump voter, other things being equal, would you trust/like/want to be led by a guy with the defining features that you then describe based on those that you see in Trump? How many such voters do you think would say yes, yes, can I have that, can I have someone with those features, please? Very few, right? Perhaps some Proud Boys. Who beyond them? You aren’t sure. How about all or even most of Trump’s voters? I don’t believe it.

So when I imagine that kind of exchange, for me it raises a serious question. Why are there so many votes for what I find, what we find, and what I even think many of Trump’s voters would find, in other circumstances, so odious? What did Trump offer that outweighed or (along with Fox) made invisible to others what we rejected? What did he offer that outweighed or (along with Fox) made invisible or entertaining but not real what a great many and I think even most of his voters would have ordinarily rejected? What’s his attractive aspect that overcame and even made invisible or trivial his repulsive aspect? And if you think that cannot exist, consider Bill Clinton’s voters ignoring his downside—or, honestly, consider every Presidential candidate’s voters ignoring their choice’s downside. Or if you think I have a naive view of Trump’s voters, okay, maybe so, but look at a couple of dozen interviews with instances of Trump voters online. Or maybe see what those who you know would say, asked the above. And then tell me you still think crediting them with humanity is naive.

I think Trump’s attraction has to be a quality, a promise, a pledge, not a specific policy. Did more than a handful of his voters read the 900 page program and say, oh man, that’s what I want? I don’t think actual explicit program was the attraction. Some promises, sure, maybe that was part of it. Like, I will fix the economy, for example. Or I will solve immigration. Or perhaps some poorly forged assumptions about what Trump would wind up, were part of it. Like, Trump likes people like me. Bombast, sure. But specific programs? I think they played nearly no roll.

Some would say the attraction is a belief that Trump will keep non-whites down, as in make racism resurgent. There is certainly some of that, to be sure. Hate the other. Hurt the other. But Latino Trump voters didn’t vote in significant numbers for keeping themselves down. Likewise for Black Trump voters. And while some whites likely did vote for explicitly hurting non whites, I think there was much more than racism, or maybe better to say there was much beyond racism, at work.

Some would say Trump’s attraction is a belief that he will keep women down, as in make patriarchy resurgent. Same thing. There is certainly some of that, to be sure. Hate women. Hurt women. But women voters didn’t vote for Trump in such large numbers to keep themselves down. Some men did vote for explicitly hurting women, yes, I believe so, but I think there was much more than sexism, or maybe better to say there was much beyond sexism, at work.

What about a belief that Trump will preserve some voters’ familiar ways of living? A feeling that Trump cares about me. He will raise me back up. He will stop whites like me from falling. He will stop men like me from falling. He will make us men again. And, to boot, he will get me some dignity. He will get me some influence. I can be on a winning team, on our team, on my team, on a team where I matter—if I am on Trump’s team.

Is all that just word play? Isn’t to keep whites up the same as to keep those others down because they are inferior? Isn’t to keep men up the same as to keep women down, trans down, gays down, because they are inferior? Yes, objectively it can be that, but might the essence of it for many and perhaps even for most Trump voters (though not for Trump), instead be that the other shouldn’t be replacing us, the other shouldn’t be changing our ways of living, shouldn’t be causing me to fall. Couldn’t it often be, I don’t want to hurt the other. I want to save and help myself?

I am already suffering incredibly. Trump will stop the replacement of my ways with other ways. I think maybe Trump’s attraction could in considerable part be a feeling like that.

Is that formulation just a way to paper over vicious racism and vicious sexism? It could be, but what if at present, more often than not, it isn’t? Then calling it viciousness could unintentionally help make it viciousness. Could push people who have aligned with Trump for other reasons to defensively maliciously pursue vicious racism and sexism to stay on the team. That is the tune that Nazism on the march struts to. That, and passivity from potential opponents. And at the core of what’s coming, I think Trump wants to play that tune.

So what about I want to get me some dignity, get me some influence? I want to be on a winning team, our team, my team—not the elite’s team where I am barely an afterthought, but Trump’s team where I feel like the main thought? I think that feeling is big.

As college educated empowered professionals fled the Republican Party into the Democratic Party, and as non-college educated disempowered workers fled the Democratic Party into the Republican Party, could it be that the teams kept their members but switched hats? Okay, maybe, but in that case, why would the working class constituency that moved toward the Republican Party, with the economy still as its big focus, adhere to its new party’s old ways much less to billionaire boss Trump? Perhaps it was because Trump knew to minimize their antagonism toward owners and to build on their antagonism toward their worsening plight and on what I call the coordinator class and every other scapegoat he could blame other than himself and his allies. And thus on workers’ antagonism toward the Democrats. And perhaps because Trump makes himself appear to be one of the boys albeit he puffs himself up as bigger, badder, and nastier to bring folks on his march.

So the knowable truth is that the election was impacted by a slew of multi-variable, intersecting factors. Did Trump emerge on top because he was lucky? Or God-backed? Or was it because he handled the many variables relatively effectively? Did Trump win because he knew how to appeal to multiple inclinations, even to opposite ones, all at the same time? And because the media let him do it? And the Dems did too? Is it because he knew how to attract justifiably angry, alienated people who ought to have been repulsed by his true self such that their repulsion faded into the background? Sort of like all candidates attract their supporters—when you think about it—but in Trump’s case better and bigger and to pursue something of his own that is way more extreme than other candidates.

My own key take-away from the election itself is this. Many Trump voters disagree with you and me not so much about values (some of that, of course, but not intensely much) as about the facts of the matter and thus the consequences of their vote. They ask, who cares about my economic circumstances and who will make changes that may help me? Is it Trump who says the economy is in the toilet or Biden/Harris who say it is going great when I feel like it is in the toilet? Who threatens democracy and weaponizes the legal system? Is it Trump who is trying to release people like me from prison, or is it Biden/Harris who I see attacking their opponent mercilessly and ceaselessly from every angle? Who hears my pain at feeling replaced, demoted, dissed? Is it Trump who shrieks like me at what is all around, or is it Biden and Harris from another world who celebrates what is all around? Confused? Yes. Drowned by a narrow range of communications, yes. But if our disagreements with many Trump voters are very often about some facts of the matter and about the consequences of choices, then isn’t that precisely what organizing is meant to address, however impassioned and militant the opposed stances may be? And doesn’t that tell us one big important thing about what is needed next? And for that matter doesn’t Trump’s voters outrage at what is tell us whither big important thing, but about what is possible?

What’s Next?

People who want a better world always try to protect and improve the lot of suffering constituencies at the same time as they try to develop means and support to do still more. That is activist agenda. And that holds now, too. But people of course do that work in different settings, with different resources, and with different opponents. No one knows with any precision what our Trumpian situation and context for fighting to protect and improve the lot of various constituencies and to expand our means to win still more thereafter is about to become. Likely not even Trump knows in any detail, much less anyone else in what will be his administration, which will be subject to his will.

Nonetheless, I think we can reasonably assume that Trump is going to quickly begin to pursue what he has overtly and aggressively said that he will pursue. So there is, as the song said, a very bad moon rising. He will go after a first round of his enemies, and then more. He will fire a first round of government employees, ready to then fire more. He will make abhorrent appointments, in particular but not only Kennedy Jr. and Musk, and then more. He will trash environmental and labor protections and start looking at and making noises about shutting down the Department of Education, FDA, and CDC while he shuts some lesser agencies first, and then moves on to the bigger targets. He will begin to drill baby drill as fast as he can. He will close the border and begin to deport undocumented immigrants but will also keep them but reduce their status even further, starting day one. He gets media, so he will begin the process of step by step controlling it and eventually establishing state media. And he will appoint and chat with Generals trying to get them to agree that if called upon, they will repress his enemies at home. All this Trump will quickly initiate but strategically pursue, taking easier steps first, not least to keep his most virulent support happy. He will keep whining about being mistreated and attacked, fight off his legal enemies, and try to get his thin support to become more committed. And on all these fronts he will seek some, and then if successful, seek some more, as long as he can get away with it. So our task is to not let him make progress. To fight against fascism will mean to fight all of his agendas. But let’s consider somewhat more one area that may well come up first and be most visible, his immigration efforts, to think about the kinds of choices opposing Trump may include.

If we suppose Trumpism is going to pursue deporting millions of undocumented immigrants with families, we know Trump will not seek to do it in a day, week, or month. That would be impossible and in any event, very stupid. His administration will instead seek to do it a step at a time. Do a little that’s easier. Normalize that. Then do some more that’s harder. And complicating his agenda, he will also have to take account that business is not going to want rampant deportation. Some sure, but very far from all. So we can expect, I think, that Trump will see that light and accommodate it by weakening, dividing, legally intimidating and restraining immigrants who he must agree to let stay. For him the immigrant task will become to deport some to not least to help galvanize hostility toward and to isolate and especially scare immigrants who remain not only lest economic chaos ensues, but also to offset economic losses for owners of many deportations by rolling back all protections for immigrant workers who remain.

So, what comes first regarding immigration? Perhaps to deport undocumented immigrants who are in jail plus their families, as the easiest and thus best first target to vilify. Then, after that is normalized, perhaps to deport undocumented immigrants who aren’t in jail and who are not convicted of crimes, but who are claimed by police to be criminals even though not convicted, plus their families. Finally, if that isn’t enough, if Trump really is not only vile but also a moron, which I don’t anticipate, with all that normalized, he will move on to deport the rest, that is to deport every remaining undocumented immigrant and family. But, more likely, either seeing the need himself or educated/pressured by owners from various immigrant dependent industries to meet their needs, then both to avoid chaos but also of course enrich the rich, perhaps Trump doesn’t deport all, or even most, but instead just a whole lot while he further reduces immigrants’ ability to fight against their super exploitation by rolling back all defenses they may have and drumming up steadily more hate toward them. So if even some of all that is broadly correct, what would fighting fascism require regarding immigration?

If the envisioned steps begin and in response we don’t resist or we even mount protest that is, however, overrun, then the immigration agenda will not only move forward at tremendous human and social cost, so will Trump’s support. So what is needed is not just to protest deportations, but to stop them. This will be the logic regarding every pursuit Trump undertakes. The more he wins the harder it will be to stop him. So, we need to fight him from the beginning. And, for example, with our eyes on the whole immigrant agenda, our task will need to include strengthening remaining immigrants by diminishing hostility toward them and  protecting them and indeed all workers against removal of rights and defenses, while also preparing to not just defend but enlarge their rights and powers.

Regarding immigration, I have heard, already, of principals of public schools meeting with area superintendents about what to do when ICE shows up at the door to take some of their students from their school. One thing would presumably be for the principals to decide to not cooperate but not to literally block the ICE agents. The other riskier and scarier thing would be to decide to literally block the agents. After the superintendent meets with the principal, for example, or even without that step, a principal might meet with a school’s teachers and staff and decide we will not be party to deporting our students. We will not only not help ICE, we will literally block ICE from entering our school. They might go on to decide, we will block them very visibly and openly, as creatively as we can conceive, not only to protect our students but also to inspire other schools and workplaces to do likewise. And then they might make plans to do so.

And if ICE is thwarted at its first appearance, but then comes back with more agents, what would be next? The school faculty and staff might decide essentially the same thing. We block entry again. ICE then says it will arrest us. What then? Perhaps we decide, okay, we will get arrested. You will have to carry off teachers to jail. But perhaps we will also seek to get lots of parents of students to stand with us. To keep ICE out. So then perhaps ICE says, okay, you are a pain in the ass so we will take your students off the street, or we will take them from their homes. And maybe the school staff then decides, no, not from our classes you won’t, but also not elsewhere. Maybe school staff decides to establish a sanctuary to protect their students from ICE. Maybe then they even offer night classes and events for the community so the school always has lots of people present and has growing diversifying support. And suppose others decide we have to counter lies and denigration aimed at immigrants to justify their mistreatment. And campaigns to that effect arise as well. And if all that were to happen, or something equally effective and outwardly were to arise threatening schools’ staffs, if schools happen to move first against Trump’s immigration/deportation plans, what then?

Best case, maybe the teachers unions sign on. And the resistance spreads to many many more schools. And maybe some employers who hire undocumented workers day by day start to resist, and then many more related unions in industries with immigrant workers follow suit. And then, all unions? Or perhaps earlier, maybe places of worship start offering sanctuary to block deportations. And then imagine something still bigger happens after weeks and months of this struggle that includes various confrontations that steadily arouse more involvement, more solidarity.

Perhaps in New York City, say, the NY Football Giants welcome immigrants to the stadium, set up a sanctuary for them, and tell the city that until ICE backs off, no more football. Or perhaps the artists who work at Lincoln Center do that. Or the NBA players do that. Or Columbia University, NYU, and others do that. Sanctuary cities are great and are lining up already to not aid Trump, but literal sanctuary “homes” to provide protection and also means to fight for better circumstances would make them sanctuary cities even greater. To fight against Trump seeking to isolate and super exploit all remaining immigrants essential to economic (read, Capitalist stability), would become part of opposing Trump’s deportations too. And then?

This may all sound fanciful but isn’t it what we will need? Isn’t there now no alternative to having a real alternative? If a surge to the right, toward full blown fascism, can go step by step without major, serious, and successful opposition so that Trump’s growing repression and violations pick off one target and then another, won’t it do so? Isn’t that what we are up against? The more steps it successfully takes, the more steps it acclimates people to, then the bigger the next steps will be, the faster they will follow, and the harder resistance will become. If that is right, and it is certainly a time-worn authoritarian pattern, then doesn’t it follow that we have to resist effectively right at the outset of each Trump effort? Immigration being one front, but not the only one. Courageous committed teachers being one activist participant, but not the only one?

My point is that to ask what’s next is not asking a familiar question about our usual situation. If Trump and whoever composes his administration are out to pursue their Project 2025 agenda, what we do to resist will not be movement activism in only the usual, familiar, settings that seeks desirable gains by only familiar methods. Instead, it will have to resist and stop Trumpian incursions on what will, if it is left to expand, eventually dismantle everything democratic and really everything civil other than corporate ownership and Trump-dominated government, and perhaps carefully monitored 12 step programs. Isn’t the only thing that will stop that spreading reach of authoritarianism specific resistance and associated solidarity which cannot be overcome without Trump and his administration losing its support and finally losing its enforcement apparatus. Tell me that that kind of resistance, broadening and deepening with every step forward is impossible, and I will tell you that I fear we are in that case headed for Hell.

In short, Trump, with the support that he has and the mandate he can claim, albeit that I think his support and mandate is still rather thin and far from eager for Project 2025 type steps, will take what he thinks he can easily get and what he thinks he can easily get will then grow with each new success. To stop him therefore needs to start right away. We must prevent his agenda and the human harm it would impose, right at the outset so we don’t face a much harder problem of dismantling full blown fascism after it is in place.

First, in various situations some people will talk together, plan, and act in their own chosen ways, like the hypothetical school staffs mentioned above. Such first actions will make it easier for others in other situations to then do likewise. And resistance will then spread. We must do it starting as early after inauguration as we can in ways that will not provide an excuse for violent repression but that will be effective and inspire others to do their best in more domains, and that will simultaneously start to earn wide respect and support, even from elements among Trump’s voters.

Trump has a program. He is not just defending a horrible system. He is hell bent on making it worse. He is not hiding anything. And he will do what he wants unless he is stopped. It isn’t going to be easy, and while large rallies and demonstrations to display and grow dissent can and likely should be part of it, my guess is that active, organized, carefully conceived and planned, determined and replicable as well as effective modes of resistance are going to be essential.

Election Day, they won a battle. But this war is not over. It will be difficult but certainly not hopeless.

I am saddened, horrified, enraged, sickened, outraged, and pummeled that the fascist but clever psychopath who will be President yet again in a couple in a couple of months. I am also scared and feeling weak over what happened. I suspect many who may read this are feeling more or less similarly. Muddled too. Even getting out of bed isn’t easy. Comedies on Netflix beckon. But the truth is,  we cannot surrender. A brief break to replenish, yes, but with a timeline and a constant eye to return. Some are without any doubt going to start fighting first. Sometimes it will be their situation that makes it easier for them or prods them harder, sometimes their more prepared personal inclination will move them. Whatever. But honestly, the really important group will be those who join next. You who read this or other formulations like it. With all your knowledge. With all your experience. Be in one of those two groups. If you are, Trump will go berserk but he will also lose because more will join and then more, and then even his voters will start to dissent. It may take a year or two, but it can be done. It must be done.

Trump is relying on, well, what in my past was called for me, the sounds of silence. Watch his agenda unfold, horrified but quiet. Angry but inactive. And silence will rule.

It is time to disturb the sounds of silence.

This piece first appeared on ZNet.