Gessen kicks things off by acknowledging the questions Patrick raises, indicating that while much of the resistance he mentions is actively happening, it doesn’t quite feel sufficient. Erica Chenoweth, a noted political scientist focused on nonviolent resistance, points to an increase in protests compared to 2017 when it seemed like there was a more robust response to Trump’s initial presidency. The courts, too, have seen significant pushback from judges and lawyers challenging various executive actions, which is noteworthy.
So, what seems to be missing? Why does the resistance feel scattered or ineffective?
To begin with, the Democrats appear to be lacking both as a legislative and political force. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stand out as exceptions, their impactful efforts highlighting a general absence of the Democratic Party’s broader position against Trump. In a two-party system, if the opposition doesn’t clearly present itself, there’s no unified understanding or strategy against Trump. And despite well-intentioned groups defending trans Americans or rallying young Democrats, these efforts aren’t enough on their own to fill that gap.
Tufekci adds that the dissatisfaction with ineffective opposition isn’t unique to the U.S., drawing parallels with Turkey. Recently, protests erupted when the charismatic mayor of Istanbul, a popular figure expected to challenge Erdogan, was arrested. While there’s fury over this arrest, there’s also frustration aimed at the opposition parties for failing to organize effectively in the past two decades during Erdogan’s reign.
Drawing from years of research and personal experience with protests, Tufekci notes that numbers alone don’t create change. Without a smart, strategic plan over time, street protests fail to make the impact they could have. Politicians often ignore, suppress, or dismiss protests unless they’re integrated into a long-term strategy.
Kristof chimes in by emphasizing that opposition takes many forms and sometimes requires a moment to pause and reflect. During Trump’s first term, driven by his divisive actions, many, including Kristof, shifted further left, which in some cases made countering him less effective. For example, in reaction to Trump splitting families at the border, Kristof and others may have overlooked the voices of countless Americans prioritizing a more controlled approach to immigration. Ignoring a significant voter concern often leads to losing elections.
Overall, the conversation underscores a need for organized, strategic opposition that can effectively address and incorporate the concerns of the broader public to enact meaningful change.
