Beyond Resistance: Sustained Action in the Form of Parallel Structures
Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty
Over the past eight years, American politics has given us a political party who has told us that they weren’t particularly in the mood to give healthcare to 9/11 first responders, created laws that were intended to lower the African-American turnout in elections (which was something explicitly stated by some officials) as they simultaneously argued about the historical irrelevance of section 5 of the the Voting Rights Act, repeatedly attempted to rid 20 million Americans of their health care (which would cause thousands to die), refused to hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee, advocated for the right to refuse service to gay couples as well as the right to refuse those identifying as transgender the ability to use the bathroom, and more. It has also given us Donald Trump, whose incoming administration has already produced widespread concern.
Given what the GOP has told us about itself, and given the positions taken by the incoming administration, it doesn’t seem impossible to think that one should argue something equally sharp in return — that if Jason Chaffetz is more interested in threatening the head of the Office Of Congressional Ethics than in even attempting to show a modicum of interest in Trump’s active violation of the Emoluments Clause, we should respond by calling for the dissolution of the entire GOP — and it would also seem reasonable to plan out for every possible fear that’s arisen. But I think those two points are each missing something crucial.
The medium by which these fears are expressed aren’t a substitute for genuine engagement, for one. Jeb Bush has engaged with education, and the results are genuinely interesting. And it’s important to know that if — for instance — the Affordable Care Act is repealed, there are places some people can immediately go to try and mitigate the damage, like GoodRX, NeedyMeds, Healthfinder, and elsewhere. It’s good to know that there’s an ‘Indivisible Guide’ out there, or a newsletter like ‘Resist,’ or a shelf in City Lights in San Francisco that’s explicitly dedicated to the coming political moment.
But there’s a difference between engagement and scholastically (or even semi-scholastically) informed fear. And we are currently swamped with both fear and what strikes me as engagement that could do with more forms of targeted measurement — that is, a better sense of goals we need to reach and how close we are (or could be) to meeting them.
Consider all the examples of scholastically informed fear you’ve seen since the election and how often they operate free from the context of “And here’s what you can do about that” (and while it isn’t the job of a journalist to do that, the gap exists): for a time, a decent swath of Twitter seemed to be semi-convinced that Obama would be the historical analogue of a Black Republican Senator elected before the dismantling of Reconstruction, but that doesn’t have to be the case if we successfully protest voter suppression and support great candidates; appointing Generals to the cabinet will not automatically result in a coup, especially if our institutions and sense of democratic structure remains strong; and Trump will not end the world in a nuclear arms race, even if it means revisiting the Truman-era debate of the chain of command with regard as to who controls the arsenal and why.