Dear Angelenos -- I am so sorry about what has happened and what is likely to get worse in your resilient, brave, and polyglot city. Trump's ICE thugs and friends stirred your resistance and he's now bringing in the National Guard. That's what you get for standing up for your neighbors.
This is just what our aspiring monarch wanted, of course -- an excuse to militarize a crisis he incited.
Way back in April (seems ages ago in Trump-time doesn't it?), Daniel Hunter -- a nonviolence trainer who has worked with ethnic minorities in Burma, pastors in Sierra Leone, and independence activists in northeast India -- offered some thought about how we should respond when this time came. Hunter framed his article in terms of Trump invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807 which doesn't seem to be quite where we're at. But likely whatever difference remains is not actually a distinction.
Says Hunter:
President Trump loves direct control and so it strikes me that invoking the Insurrection Act is very likely. This occasionally used provision empowers the president, with few legal limitations, to deploy U.S. military and federalized National Guard troops inside the country.
... If Trump’s regime was stacked with brilliant (but ruthless) tacticians, use of the Insurrection Act would be merely a prelude to a greater restriction of freedoms beyond the border, culminating in the use of the military against protesters in blue-state cities.
Violence at protests would be the quickest way for him to get there. This could take the form of protesters engaging in disciplined acts of property destruction, but better for Trump if there were scenes of bloody street fights. If his opponents don’t hand it to him, prepare for him to egg on already twitchy counter-protesters or use agent provocateurs. Violence in the streets feeds Trump’s strongman image.
...Authoritarians love some violence in the street. It allows them to swoop in with crackdowns they claim will protect the population from criminals. In fact, ordinary scared people may even call for crackdowns to “restore peace.” ... petty violence is the spark the administration wants — and how we need a simple message: “We are not violent, Trump is.”
Unfortunately, it serves the MAGA's interests when we respond to their violence with violence. Yet stand up for ourselves and neighbors, we must. What to do?
Some thoughts:
• Demand that elected leaders put themselves out in front of the constituents they represent in facing down the assault on the city. Gavin Newsom -- will you walk the front line? How about Mayor Bass?
• Demand that community leaders, especially clergy, get out there as well. This is how they earn their legitimacy.
• Find ways to use mockery and humor in protest. Come on -- LA is where The Industry that entertains the world invents itself. Here's Hunter again:
... Humor is key for morale and exposing the vulnerability of the strongman image. When Russia effectively banned protests, activists in the Siberian city of Barnaul organized a “toy protest.” Lego characters and tiny figurines took to the streets. (The humor only grew as the police clumsily “arrested” all the figurines.)
After Milošević [in Serbia] accused the nonviolent movement Otpor! of terrorism, they organized “terrorist fashion shows” — where regular folks stood up in their casual every-day wear. (“Clearly a terrorist — look at his glasses! He must be a reader.”)...
The image we want to raise is one that contrasts law-abiding undocumented folks woven into our community versus the lawless cabal of mostly white men that Trump lifts up as heroes. This is the contrast that helps build public outrage.
• • •
Josh Marshall assessed the new moment wisely:
The President has triggered this crisis and is now using it to exercise military authority within a state against the wishes of the state’s civilian elected leaders – Mayor, Governor, congressional representatives, etc. This is 100% Trump. He’s created the situation and now he’s exploiting it.
We’re very clearly entering a moment of grave danger. My main thought about this is to remember – as we’ve said in other contexts – that the fight to preserve the American republic remains fundamentally one over public opinion. The President has a lot of power here for violence and mischief. But he’s not in charge of what people think about it, whether they think his actions are legitimate, wise, anything they support. You can dismiss whether public opinion matters in a case like this. I disagree. It’s fundamentally what it’s all about, what will eventually decide all of this.
We've got a president who forces us to find new ways to describe his egocentric malignant antics. That's our burden.
No comments:
Post a Comment