Anti-Trump, Pro-?
Article by Jason Read on the mobilizations against Trump
Opposition to Trump preceded his election. His campaign was met with large protests, even preventing him from speaking in Chicago. Politicians are always met with protest, but Trump’s remarks created something more intense and widespread. So much so that his election was immediately met with a women’s march on the day after his inauguration. These organized marches exceed all estimates, so much so that Trump spent the weekend of his inauguration arguing with the media about the side of the crowds, attempting to restore an appearance of popular legitimacy. What started as an exercise in the “lite” feminism of Clinton’s “I am with Her” slogan quickly became a contestation over the very representation of the people.
The opposition to Trump is heterogeneous to say the least. It encompasses members of Black Lives Matter, Anarchists, Newly dubbed socialists, as well as Clinton voters, and those already nostalgic for the appearance of a kinder and gentler America under Obama. As with the February 15th 2003 mass demonstration against the Iraq War, and even elements of Occupy Wall Street, the increased mass of people on the street has led to a dilution of meaning and message. To be against Trump is to be for everything from the Democratic Party to revolutionary transformation. As is the case with the previous movements, the major practical question is how to build a movement in a movement, to educate and focus critique while contending with the a President that shifts targets with each tweet. There is one substantial and important difference, however, past mobilizations in America have made their size, their number, part of their legitimacy, claiming to be a true majority. This was true of the millions who marched against the war in Iraq, and it was at least symbolically invoked in Occupy Wall Street’s claim to represent the 99% opposed to the 1% who control much of the world’s wealth. Opposition to Trump also has an appeal to a majority, after all a majority of Americans voted for Clinton. His victory is due to the Electoral College, an anti-popular institution with roots in slavery that now gives rural states and populations a disproportionate influence. However, this majoritarian appeal hits a snag in the multitude of different populations affected by Trump’s presidency, each targeted in a series of Executive Orders, refugees and immigrants, women, and, if current rumors are to be believed, gay, lesbian, and trans individuals will the next target of Executive Orders legitimating discrimination under the guise of religious freedom. These different populations cannot be unified in any appeal to a majority, but must be defended as different, as minorities.
In the coming months and years, as the dominant institutions, parties, and media, make their appeal based on the rules of law and the rules of the game, claiming that Trump is necessarily due the respect of the office, or, in its cruder variant, “He won, get over it,” it will be necessary for the opposition to Trump to articulate both its critique of democratic legitimacy and its ideals or values. If the movement is to be expanded and moved beyond an appeal for the Democratic Party, it must articulate both a critique of democratic legitimacy and its own values and ideals. In doing so it is perhaps aided in the fact that Trump has shifted the terrain from the formality of law to the spectacle of the majority. Trump has articulated his politics to an idea of a majority, white, rural, straight, Christian, a majority represented as the norm in television. Trump’s appeal is not to the formality of the Electoral College, in fact, he claims that he would have won the popular vote had it not been for illegal votes cast by immigrants. Trump’s claims are often seen as part of his narcissism and need for validation, but psychological observations overlook their political function. Trump claims to represent the “true majority,” not a simple legal formality. Perhaps some clarity on this point can be offered by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari’s definition of majority. As Deleuze and Guattari write,
“Majority implies a constant, of expression or content, of expression or content, serving as a standard measure by which to evaluate it. Let us suppose that the constant or standard is the average adult-white-heterosexual-European-male-speaking a standard language. It is obvious that “man” holds the majority even if he is less numerous than mosquitos, children, women, blacks, peasants, homosexuals, etc. That is because he appears twice, once in the constant and again in the variable from which the constant is extracted.”
Opposition to Trump must contest both the official majority of rule of law, and formal procedures, while at the same time undermining the spectacle of whiteness, maleness, citizenship, and heterosexuality considered as the norm, the standard, from which all else are deviant.
In doing so it is aided in Trump’s embrace of elements of the far right, or alt-right. Trump’s appointment of Steve Bannon, formerly of Breitbart News, as well as tweeting in favor of Milo Yiannopolis, have undermined any attempt to present himself as a representative of a neutral majority. The protest and movement “Black Lives Matter” has made as one of its central claims the racial bias and base of the police, state, and it almost seems that Trump is working hard to confirm that claim. More to the point, Trump is staking his presidency on the idea that not only is his America, his base, the true America, but that policies that appeal to such a constituency and representation are effective to stem any opposition, that gains in security, even imaginary ones, will outweigh increased repression, and that an increase in symbolic standing, the recognition of whiteness and Christianity, will outweigh decreases in economic standing, as worker’s protections are eroded.
The situation is metastable at best, with different tensions and possibilities contending with each other, mapping out different futures. The only future that seems to be foreclosed is the nostalgia for the immediate past, for some restoration of a kindler and gentler America.