Starting on Friday and continuing over the weekend, millions of people came out to protest the new Trump presidency. While some have called this a historic moment – and in some ways it is – I am really not sure what to make of it.
I found myself disinclined to either cover or participate in what was about a 20,000-person protest in Sacramento. Impressive numbers, but I can’t help feeling if just a small percentage of those people had instead gone to Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in October to work on the campaign, they might have prevented this to begin with. Then again, hindsight is 20/20.
I’ve seen this described to be a futile gesture or, worse yet, people who are being sore losers whining because they didn’t get their way. I’m not sure this is that much different than the Tea Party movement that emerged in the first Obama administration.
Radley Balko’s tweet from Friday kind of sums it up for me: “Demanding we all wish the president success was dumb in 2008. It’s still dumb. If he pushes policies I abhor, *of course* I hope he fails.”
The reality is that the reason I think the gestures on Friday were futile is that, just as President Trump on Friday spoke to his America, the protesters on Friday and Saturday were representing their America. America is hopelessly divided between those two sides and, while I tend to believe that time is still on the side of the more liberal, multicultural America, November 8 proved that there are still enough numbers on the other side to win if people do not come out and vote.
The biggest worry is what the Trump America will actually look like. As he put it, “From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first.” And some will read further into that, “white America first.”
This is not necessarily an isolationist call, as we saw talk about protecting “our” companies, “our” jobs and “our” borders, while calling on the eradication of radical Islamic terrorism “from the face of the earth.”
He did not mention specific policies. He talked about being protected by law enforcement. But almost immediately after his speech, the White House website posted the topic “Standing Up For Our Law Enforcement Community”.
Here is that language: “A Trump Administration will empower our law enforcement officers to do their jobs and keep our streets free of crime and violence. The Trump Administration will be a law and order administration. President Trump will honor our men and women in uniform and will support their mission of protecting the public. The dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong. The Trump Administration will end it.”
As Radley Balko writes, “These aren’t off-the-cuff remarks. It’s carefully chosen language that presumably went through a number of revisions. Note the wording. Trump will do more than end violence against law enforcement. He will end the ‘anti-police atmosphere in America.’”
He notes, “You don’t end an ‘atmosphere’ without some pretty drastic action. It sounds quite like a promise to crack down on speech and protest. Ominous as that sounds (and it’s pretty ominous), absent some wanton, unheard of abuse of power like federalizing the National Guard to subdue the next round of protests against police abuse, there isn’t a whole lot Trump can do directly, at least not in the short term.”
In the longer term that could mean more militarization of police, and more interference in local law enforcement from the federal government. There will be less Justice Department interference in local police. And he could ramp up spying and data collection efforts.
In the meantime, what we have seen with the more lenient Obama Administration in the last two years has been concerning. Investigations into the police in Chicago has led to stark findings of racial bias, and the subsequent backing off of police accountability efforts in places like Chicago and Baltimore has led to an explosion of violent crime.
As much as I am concerned that we will see a backing off of police reform actions under a Trump administration, the biggest thing I expect is to see more clashes between civilians and police, protesters and government officials, and perhaps more riots.
One of the quick pushbacks against the protests was that, at times, the protests crossed the line from peaceful exercise of free speech to acts of vandalism and looting.
Many are quick to condemn acts of violence. When protests in Baltimore after the killing of Freddie Gray occurred turned into violent riots, many were quick to condemn those riots as counterproductive and only hurting themselves.
But I think they miss a broader point, that this anger and violence does not arise out of nowhere. In a way it is a natural response to years of state violence and oppression, and the conditions of the cities themselves.
Martin Luther King, Jr., whose birthday we honored last week at this time, was seen as a man of peace and non-violent protest. But even he recognized that violence was a natural outcome of the condition of what he called “the unheard.”
Weeks before his death in 1968 he said, “It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard.”
If Trump indeed intends to crack down on this natural expression of frustration, then the cork will be placed into the bottle. He may suppress it for some time – although I kind of doubt it. But it will come back and it will be more explosive than ever.
We live in troubled times. During the Obama administration we saw the anger and resentment of one strand of America rush to the surface. During the Trump administration, we will see the other end of the coin.
I fear for the future of this nation.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
It’s being described that way because that’s exactly what it is.
No, only Trump haters will read that into it.
What’s not to like about that?
“only Trump haters will read that into it.”
You say that as though that were a small number of people
I’m saying that because it’s not true and people that hate Trump will project that into it.
Whether it is true or not is a matter of opinion.
David
The true is that Donald Trump is the President of the United of America regardless you hate him or like him.
Irrelevant to my point
David
What is your point in this article ? Meaningless propaganda ?
“It’s being described that way because that’s exactly what it is.”
No. That is exactly how you see it.
As someone who attended the march in Sacramento, I see if very differently. The 20th was a day for celebration for those who feel represented by the ideas and values of our current president. The 21st represented for me a day to express along with thousands of others, my belief that the current president in no way represents my beliefs and values. I do not believe that peaceful demonstrations are an act of futility. I believe that they were instrumental in the changes in the south in the days of MLK and I believe that they had some influence at the time of the Viet Nam war.
I believe that this administration is likely to reap what it has sown. During the campaign, the current president called repeatedly for restoration of a “better time” when it was fine to physically attack those who do not agree with you having said that in his hypothetically “better” America, dissenters would have been “roughed up”. No projection. Those were his words. I believe that it is now true, just as it was then that he was either naive enough not to realize, or worse calculating enough to be aware that his tone would resonate with extremists on both sides.
“And some will read further into that “white America first.””
I hate no one. And yet, it is hard not to read this into the message of a man who has publicly disparaged blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims and called for a return to some fictionally “great” America of the unspecified past most of the history of which has clearly been dominated not only by whites but specifically by white males ( whom I also do not hate). Many of you may not be old enough to remember the 50’s, but I can, and can vouch for the fact that those days were not “great” for blacks, women or religious minorities.
So where and when was this mythical time of “greatness” in America of which he speaks ? I think that one can get a clue from his taped statements on race in which he makes it clear that he believes in the superiority of his own “good German blood” and his statement that if a “superior” man and a “superior woman have a child, that child will also be “superior”. I have referenced this previously, if you missed it, just Google Trump and eugenics.
Tia
Did you miss the President Obama’s time which was time of the massive deportations , millions of people in prisons, riots , unbelievable crime in big cities , 50 million people food stamps and welfare under poverty line with out hope .? This what you like because you are more fortunate than millions of others .
Jerry
This is not the first time that you have responded to a post of mine with irrelevant comments regarding the policies of the Obama administration. I celebrated those policies of former President Obama of which I approved, and spoke out against those of which I did not approve, such as the deportations, use of drones, perpetuation of what I see as unnecessary mass incarceration on which he did not act nearly forcefully enough, and the ACA’s exclusion of any proponents of single party payer health care when the law was being formulated. There was much about the Obama administration of which I approved and much of which I did not approve. What I cannot understand is that when I say something critical about the current president ( virtually none of whose values and pledges I approve) instead of engaging, you act as though I was an idolizer of President Obama which is far from true, but I suspect fulfills your goal of diverting the subject to something you would rather talk about.
Tia
You are idolizer of President Obama. I am not in the mood to bash the new President I respected President Obama regardless what he left behind after 8 years as a Chief of the White House .
David, Really poor choice of picture for this article. The Women’s March on ______ was peaceful, with nary a police officer in sight (except for the ones blocking off streets and the two on horseback at the Capital). What else would you expect when 10,000 mothers show up early in the morning on a rainy weekend, right? It was historic and I’m sorry you missed it. We did vote and we were lead to believe that Hilary had it in the bag. And she did win the most votes. People can focus on “what ifs,” but that is not going to deal with “what is” and how to move forward in an effective way. We need to keep the pressure on. Presidents in the 60’s and 70’s did eventually relent under the continuous pressure of anti-war and civil rights protestors. This is what works.
The bulk of my article was not on the Women’s March, it’s on Trump’s police policies
What policies? He has none… enacted none… are you conflating “intentions” that you believe he has, and ‘rhetoric’? To paraphrase RR, “trust, but be vigilant”… I intend to be very vigilant…
Policies is the wrong word, but he released a statement on policing which is the basis for my comment
Previous Presidents tried to implement the use of force against public protests, sending in the National Guard to battle protesters, police with dogs, billy clubs and fire hoses (now it is tasers and pepper spray), etc. Once the protests expanded to include more diverse people, united against poor policies, this strategy fell apart. Unfortunate that we have to live through this again.
Sharla… am guessing you’re young… previous presidents, since the 1950’s, sent in the national guard to stop local/state police from using dogs, billy clubs/night sticks, and fire hoses… cite one, just one credible one, example of a president (in the last 60 years) sending National Guard to taser/pepper spray anyone… or are you just positing an alt-fact (which is also known by a different term).?
Will you accept a Governor who later went on to become President? In that case, I believe it was tear gas and tanks rolling down Telegraph Ave, but the idea was much the same.
No… was going by the plain meaning of words… what Ronnie did, then later becoming prez… that is something ‘different’ in the context of what I replied to… and I differ as to whether “we have to live through this again”… 40-50 years is huge as to ‘social revolution’… I doubt the CA Nat’l Guard would obey that order today…
Do you really believe that we live in the same society as 40-50-60 years ago?
Howard, Please read my post again and note the placement of the comma. To clarify, it was governors and mayors who implemented the on the ground actions, with the support of the “law & order” policies of presidents. My own mother traveled to Selma to march with MLK Jr. to help the black protesters there. Presidents finally responded to the increasing pressure to protect citizens and changed direction regarding voter rights, segregation, and the Vietnam war, but only after these various protests spread to include a more diverse population. I am not young. I really take offense at your “alt-fact” reference. I really do. It is just so hurtful and inappropriate.
Sharla… did not mean to offend… I reacted to your words, as originally posted… in October, visited Selma (crossed the Pettus bridge twice on foot, and realized I would have wanted to lock arms with others, as I have a fear of heights), Montgomery, and Birmingham [and the place of the main encampment between Selma and Montgomery]… am both a history and civil rights buff… (my first trip to ‘the South’)
I still believe that as much as I detest the President, as an individual, I have great doubt that we’ll see those days again… if it looks to me like we might, I assure you, I will exercise my 2nd amendment rights… I hate bullies…
I plan to loudly and publicly oppose Trump, his policies and initiatives. I do not think he will succeed and hope he resigns in frustration and shame, before the congress has to impeach him. He is a fraud and crook, besides being a pervert.
[moderator] edited, meme removed.
This what the Davis VanGuard is about ? Shame
Jerry
It is interesting to me that you seem to find the posting of the now removed meme shameful, but have said nothing about the clearly proven bad behavior of our current president which brought about the creation of the meme to begin with.
Tia
Donald Trump is the President of the United State of America . I am surprised to read that you accepting the Joseph Goebbels’s type propaganda about US President . The posted meme was similar to the Der Sturmer’s memes which published obscene material such as anti-Semitic caricatures of Jews and accusations of blood libel as well as sexually explicit, anti-Catholic , anti- Communist and anti-monarchist propaganda.
John Hobbs
Who cares what and who we would or not oppose ? Get real .
Jerry
“Who cares what and who we would or not oppose ? Get real .”
I care. I care a great deal. You may not. But this is very, very real for me.
Tia
What is real for you? Made in China stuff ? I like Made in America products and I am hoping that I will see some Americans made product in stores before I die . This is my dream . Do you know what is behind this dream. Jobs for American people , less crime , less poverty , less drugs and less destroyed lives . We are singing a different song Tia . Your compassion is the Davis Vanguard’s compassion. That it .
You mean Bill Clinton?
Alan
I did not want go there in my response to John . Ha Ha
At least Clinton, Kennedy, Roosevelt didn’t brag about it… and in those cases, always seemed to be consensual, at least on the “grabbing” part… not positive on Clinton as to grabbing… but he didn’t brag about it…
At least Clinton, Kennedy, Roosevelt didn’t brag about it
Howard
Maybe this true but everybody knows about it.
However when Trump bragged about it he was far away from the presidency . Private life and public office should not be mixed together . I perfectly understand that the candidates for the public offices should meet the certain criteria which would be not disgraceful to the office . Trump is not the traditional Republican. He used the platform of the Republican party to win the election . The primary shows how the 16 Republicans fell like a Dominos in the Trump’s Blitzkrieg to presidency. 16 Noble Republicans. Unbelievable
Kind of ironic that it was found that Obama’s White House paid women less than men for the same jobs and that Hillary’s Clinton Foundation also paid women 72 cents on the dollar as compared to men while it was found that Trump paid his female employees much better than the norm.
Keith O said: “… while Trump paid his female employees much better than the norm.”
Not sure how these random statistics are relevant here, but they’re also not completely accurate: Donald Trump’s campaign pays women less than men.
Perhaps because the pay scale was based on “cup size”?
“cite one, just one credible one, example of a president (in the last 60 years) sending National Guard to taser/pepper spray anyone”
Not a president, but rather a governor, and not taser or pepper spray, but live ammunition. My example is, the shootings at Kent State. Now I am sure that was not the intent of the governor, but that is what did indeed happen. Prior to that event, I would have said that such an event could not happen here. But it did. Not so long ago, I was saying that the current occupant of the White House could not be elected. But he was. If we do not believe that such an event could happen here we are sadly deluding ourselves.
Howard P: “… cite one, just one credible one, example of a president (in the last 60 years) sending National Guard to taser/pepper spray anyone…”
Waco?
” I was saying that the current occupant of the White House could not be elected. But he was. If we do not believe that such an event could happen here we are sadly deluding ourselves.”
I share no such naivety. The current execrable occupant of the oval office is not fit in any way to be there. We’ll see how Jaroslaw feels when Putin is made an honorary American citizen and given the presidential medal of freedom. I believe that the organizational and tactical skills of experienced activists can bring this degenerate fraud to his knees.
John .
Putin is former the KGB’s chief and should not be consider as an America’s friend . Gorbachev was not different and President Reagan took care of him . President Trump knows exactly what he is doing . Do you remember how President John Kennedy was taking care of Nikita Khrushchev. Khrushchev was the first Homo Sovieticus leader who toured the America with the unusual warm welcome . A lot of the patience requires to deal with these folks which are armed with quite huge nuclear arsenal .
Eric… no… that was ATF and FBI… see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege [and no evidence of pepper spray or tasing there!] [and Waco had nothing to do with “protest”… don’t you remember the prelude?]
Janet Reno, not the President… and except in war, the national guard is under the direction of Governors, not the president.
Still awaiting the first example, as I challenged the statement…
The National Guard has been federalized more than once in history, but I think it’s been quite awhile.
National Guard was involved at Waco in supporting roles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States#Industrialization_and_labor_unrest
In the article you cited, except for Eisenhower acting to PROTECT civil rights, no PRESIDENT (countermanding the Governor, as you will note, based on your cite), no PRESIDENT has activated the National Guard to suppress civil rights… a reminder of what I responded to:
The comment I commented on is untrue in the last 60 years, and a bit paranoid, IMO. Yet you, Eric and Tia seem bent on using what is now being termed “alt-facts” to defend the quoted passage… why?
Also, on May 3 1971:
https://longreads.com/2017/01/20/in-1971-the-people-didnt-just-march-on-washington-they-shut-it-down/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_May_Day_protests#Monday_May_3
OK Don… one cite… regarding Washington DC… where there is no governor, per se, and where there may arguably have been what could have been viewed as a national security threat, due to size and proximity to the Capitol… still, that was 45 years ago… the National guard was not called out Saturday for the protest in DC…
Congrats for finding the scintilla… still, now at only a 99.0% confidence level I stand by what I wrote… and at a 1% confidence level, you have “justified” the statement:
Guess I am totally wrong and the person to whose post I responded to is totally right… there is nothing in between, right? I assert tho’, that I was 99% correct, and the person quoted is at least 99% wrong… except here, in this forum…
So in this one instance, the sources say tear gas was used… not tasers, billy clubs, or fire hoses, or dogs…
Parsed that wrong… the 3rd paragraph should have been at the end….
I will make one change that makes the statement fully accurate.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s there was civil unrest that was met with force. In most cases it was by governors using the National Guard, working with local police, at the request of mayors. In at least the May 1971 case the President directly ordered it through his Attorney General. After King was assassinated, Johnson met with leaders to coordinate responses, and directly ordered the National Guard involvement in DC since it is controlled federally.
The National Guard has been used.
Police have used dogs, billy clubs, and fire hoses to suppress protests.
Presidents have been involved in the process.
The sentence was correct as written, as I demonstrated.
You said “The comment I commented on is untrue in the last 60 years” whereupon I provided evidence of an instance less than 60 years ago.
You challenged the statement, so I met the challenge.
Ok… instead of moderating, you are acting as a “spin doctor”… why, is unclear… had you penned the original post, I’d accept that…
I could also “re-quote” the same passage in numerous other ways… but I won’t…
Have a good evening, and I guess we can look forward to “alt-quotes” with imbedded “alt-facts”… watch out tho’… you might be a pick to succeed the new press secretary who has already been caught speaking “alt-facts”.
I wrote, initially, “40-50 years is huge as to ‘social revolution’”… but it’s OK, you just “alt-quoted” me…
And yes, I subsequently used the 60 year #, but stand by my original est.
What I responded to was an assertion about a president… not a governor… your rebuttal to my rebuttal is “off point”…
Jerry
“You are idolizer of President Obama.”
Congratulations on your assumption of Frankly’s position as the unofficial Vanguard mindreader. I have truly missed being told what I believe by someone who knows my heart and mind better than I do.
I see TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome, is prevalent today on the Vanguard.
Where Trump will now have the access to Executive actions and the Reid Rule.
I remember having this conversation on here years ago that eventually a conservative would be elected and the chickens would come home to roost.
The problem is not in the stars, it’s in our self. In this case, the problem is not the rules, it’s who is making the rules.
As long as your guy and party were making the rules and using them to further their agenda all was fine with liberals. Now that someone who leans conservative has the power to use the same rules all of a sudden there’s a problem. I remember liberals saying that Democrats needed to go for it and pass whatever rules they could to bypass Republicans, now Republicans are going to use the same rules for their agenda. You were warned that this day would come.
I’m not complaining about the rules
Here’s a comment from November 2014 on the Vanguard.
How true that is today.
“As long as your guy and party were making the rules and using them to further their agenda all was fine with liberals.”
Absolutely not true for this particular liberal. I have spoken out on a number of occasions regarding what I saw as inadequacies of the ACA ( I want a single party payer, universal health care plan for all residents), with regard to foreign policy ( I am anti drone use), and was very critical of the deportation and drug policies. However, I do not believe that President Obama would have used the unilateral approach had it not been the stated objective of the Republican leadership to cause his presidency to fail. Plenty of room to look in the mirror for both sides in terms of actually governing in the manner desired by the majority of the people through their votes.
Meant as fair questions… anyone who ‘resides’? By “universal”, what do you mean? Baseline for all, with option of ‘purchasing’ more? One size fits all?
There are “injustices” in the current system… those on publicly funded medical who insist on extraordinary measures to keep a child alive, where even if those treatments are continued, there is no medical hope for recovery, and early death would be inevitable, unless the extraordinary measures are continued indefinitely (not to mention ‘quality of life’), and those in a crisis, who cannot afford treatment (not publicly funded) that might actually get them thru the crisis, and live good and likely productive lives…
Good morning Howard,
Absolutely taken as fair questions. What I believe is that all medically necessary care ( as decided by the patient and provider, not by a governmental agency or an insurance company) should be provided for all in the same way that all are covered by the police and military. I believe that elective care could be either obtained by purchasing additional insurance or by paying out of pocket. Purely cosmetic services would be the most straightforward example. One very practical example. A few years ago I had a condition of my upper eyelids that was limiting my ability to maintain my eyes fully open and thus limiting my range of vision. This is a medical condition requiring surgical treatment. This was performed without additional cost to me. At the same time, the surgeon asked if “since he was already there” I would like the skin under my eyes “tightened”. This was purely cosmetic and I paid out of pocket. There are plenty of models available to draw from as virtually every other industrialized country offers such coverage for their citizens and we have models within the US with coverage provided for our national legislators and our own military being two such systems.
Your example of one injustice in the system is certainly one, but just one of many. Some people have very strong feelings about abortion and believe that should not be covered by taxpayers, some have equally strong feelings about “doing everything possible to extend life” under any circumstances and believe that that should be a covered benefit. There are many specific details that would need to be hammered out. But from the patient’s point of view it is of little relevance whether the decision is being made by someone else whether that someone else is a governmental bureaucrat or an insurance company representative. Arguably, it might be better if it were under governmental regulation since at least we voters have some say as to who is shaping policy through our votes while we have no control over the dictates of our insurance companies. Competition alone has never and will never protect patient’s from the profit motive of private insurers.
I hope that clarifies my position, but realize it may have just generated more questions.
Well, the only question I had (previously asked, so not new) that you did not fairly answer (thank you, BTW for that, giving fair answers to the questions you responded to) is about your term “resident”… ‘citizen’? ‘immigrant’ (‘documented’ or not)? visitor/tourist who ‘resides’ for a period of time, say a couple of months?
I may not agree with your ‘position’, but I truly thank you for clarification…
Hi Howard,
Looks like I overlooked one of your critical points. My philosophy is if you are here, you get medically necessary ( as defined by you and a doctor ) health care. Just that simple.