[I posted this on FB, but I should have posted it here also.]
People keep asking me what opponents of our authoritarian administation should be doing, and it’s pretty straightforward in the abstract but very much up for argument in the specific:
DO WHAT HAS WORKED IN THE PAST, AND DON’T DO WHAT HAS NEVER WORKED.
Things that, as far as I know, have worked in the past under similar circumstances:
-have a big tent, make alliances, work together on the shared goal of saving democracy, make some compromises if necessary.
-try to crack the hardshell of the informational bubble that Trump supporters are in. Just try getting the information in front of them. If you have Trump supporters in your social media, post double-checked facts about Trump, ICE, and so on.
-make it personal; show how they’re supporting someone who is hurting people they love.
-you can try to point out that they’re rejecting Jesus, that they hold out-groups to much, much higher standards than they hold themselves or in-group members. (They know, and don’t care, but you can try.)
-you can try pointing out that they don’t really know what’s going on because they get their information from sources that misrepresent the situation. If you tell them something that they don’t want to hear, and they say it’s “fake news,” you can ask them if they get their information from a source that would tell them if it was true.
-support the groups who are filing the lawsuits.
-block walk, make phone calls, put up signs, subscribe to, and otherwise personally help opposition organizations and individuals, even if you disagree with them on many things.
If there are other things that you are aware have worked, do them (and tell others about them).
Here’s what, as far as I know, has never worked under these circumstances:
-violent protests;
-various versions of purifying the in-group (refusing to compromise, insisting on univocality or unanimity in terms of ideology, strategy, or policy), refusing to support anyone who isn’t fully in line with our policy agenda/rhetoric
-talking and thinking about policy disagreements in the pro-authoritarian “right/center/left” binary or continuum (a single axis)
-giving up
I’m open to persuasion about the specifics. But I’ll point out, if your response is that this post shows I’m a centrist/librul/whatev for making this argument, look again at the “what hasn’t worked” list.
I have no theory; but the left makes the mistake of thinking they will win by “being right” and by “heroically struggling,” against “fascism.” They do not have an historical awareness per se, but have a misunderstanding of salient historical precedents.
They are a social movement and a social movement based on youth movements; that’s why the left will ignore your advice.
All social movements are uncompromising in certain ways; this movement for some reason, unlike that of Dr. King, is not flexible even in terms of means.
It is odd and troubling, and there may be explanations.
Your lists make sound sense to me
Try rewriting that comment without using the phrase “the left”–what would you write?
Fair point. My initial reaction is that the right aims at using threat of force, while the left aims at thought control. Are the far left and far right mirrors?
Both sides react differently to feeling unsafe from their own metaphysical danger.
I’m genuinely curious, I’m not a professional observer of American politics
The left and right in America are dominated by social movements; social movements can be strategic like the Civil Rights movement under the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King or they can simply demand immediate results by excessive rhetoric. Today’s left is ruled by social movements spearheaded by youth, who lack the patience and discernment to make the sacrifices to win and negotiate the contingencies of power. They just want to perform being right, while the right simply wants power, even if self destructive.
Not clear how I’d phrase my argument in terms of a scholar of rhetoric; however I can’t be the only person to say or see this
What would your post look like if you had to stop talking about the left v. the right?
I would talk about the happy middle which is where I am, or maybe the golden mean. Is the rhetoric similar on left and right (and middle)?