Didn’t want to hijack the existing other thread about opposing Trump, so I started a new one:
Nearly every form of proposed resistance against Trump is usually 1) ineffective, or 2) just not plausible or doable. For instance, a nationwide boycott of all shopping, nationwide job strike, etc. (as suggested in the other thread) is not going to happen. Having 30 million Americans turn out to protest will not happen. Saying that Democratic politicians ought to do something much more emphatic against Trump is a valid point, but that’s not something we the people can do since we’re not senators/governors. Peaceful protesting on the No Kings scale is doable, but not effective.
Physical obstruction of ICE (from arresting migrants) is plausible and doable at the micro level, but it may not necessarily help on the macro level - and may in fact embolden Trump/Patel to crack down harder. A massive landslide defeat of Republicans in the 2026 midterms would be good, but that still leaves a full year of time between now and then for MAGA/Trump to do damage (and even with a blue Congress, Trump still has a whole lot of executive power to do harm.)
So, what are we left with that we can do that is both 1) effective and 2) doable?
Hundreds of people taking their time crossing the street at major intersections of major cities during rush hour (and at lunch) across the country, on a regular basis.
Slow traffic across all lanes of urban interstates during morning and evening rush hour.
Flash mob-type protests stopping traffic into major airports during peak departure times, especially Mondays and Fridays.
Flash mobs delaying access to major sports events (e.g., college and NFL football games).
You have to define your goal to measure effectiveness. The primary goal is a Democratic majority in Congress. That’s the most effective way to counter the president. Any activity that supports this goal, like rallies and protests, are effective. Not only do they motivate and engage the base, they also influence the middle. A large event in your town shows that it is normal people like you, not just extremists that are resisting.
I don’t think this is true in a post social media world. I think the turning point against W Bush was catalyzed by Stephen Colbert’s White House Correspondents Dinner speech, but that mockery is tame by today’s standards.
The only plausible and effective methods available to regular people to counter Trump is to convince more people to vote D / fewer people to vote R than what happened in the previous election. I don’t see how any of those things helps to achieve those objectives.
In theory, the other option is to convince Republican senators / representatives / governors / judges to not cooperate with the Trump agenda. But that is highly unlikely to ever happen, and even if it does, the methods you note are less likely, not more, to help achieve that outcome. I think this
is realistically the best option we have available.
ETA: If protests like that actually occurred, all it would do is convince me that the Democratic base is falling victim to the same disease that caused the Trump base to go crazy and do stupid shit. I’m already a reliable D voter, and those kinds of things, if they achieve a large enough level of disruption, might actually convince me to stay home. Why would middle of the road Democrats who just want things to go back to the pre-2016 normal be persuaded by adding to the crazy?
Protests are sometimes known as “demonstrations”, and for good reason. 7 million peaceful protestors are a “demonstration” of what could happen if oppression is ramped up. 7 million could easily swell to 50 million if they are moved to anger.
It works wonderfully on Trump. Do you remember how obviously bothered he was when Kamala kept calling him weird? that was hitting all the right buttons.
On a personal level: cut any Trump voter out of your life. Don’t let Trump voters see their grandkids, don’t visit them on the holidays. Don’t give them social space among decent people. Make it hurt.
He won the election. I would say it didn’t work at all.
It’s fine for getting some online attention, but it needs to be followed up by getting people off their couches and out to demonstrations, protests, rallies, etc. That’s how you get people engaged and committed. From there you get volunteers for phone banks, letter-writing, and actually showing up to vote.
There was a demonstration last week against local police working with ICE. It had a big turnout I think partly because people were already engaged with other demonstrations like No Kings (and vice versa). Starting local is the most effective way to influence policy. We have to avoid thinking on terms of all or nothing.
Given that the Supreme Court is locked-up for Republicans, Congress is the key for Democrats to counter authoritarianism. Any resistance activities should work backwards from this goal.
I guess another front in the fight is getting more states to join a united front against Federal overreach. I’m not knowledgeable about Governorships or State Houses that are in play, but that would be another goal to work backwards from.
I mentioned letter-writing campaigns. That’s something you can do from home to try to have an impact on voters in swing states and districts.
We have to have realistic expectations. We are all just 1 of 160M voters. Each of us can only have a very modest impact. In this climate, for all your effort, you might be able to change 1 mind or motivate 2 people to show up to vote. If you keep a realistic goal like that, it’s much more heartening to try. If you go to a demonstration, maybe you’ll influence 20 strangers by 5%.
Using the power of the jury box is highly effective. Grand juries are refusing to indict people for resisting ICE. If you are ever on a grand jury or a trial jury, you have a right to vote no to indict or vote not guilty for any reason you want. If someone breaks the law resisting fascism, you have the right to refuse to convict them. Giving the power to punish people to the public was built into the constitution for a reason, it was so the state wasn’t the one who had the final say in whether people were punished for breaking the law.
Voting works, but sadly about 70 million Americans will happily vote for a corrupt, incompetent, plutocratic, fascist pedophile any chance they get. So on the national level, voting is going to be about 50/50 for the foreseeable future.
So the best thing democrats can do is use the power of state governments they control to resist the federal government. Something like 40% of the US population lives in states with democratic trifectas, and those 15 states make up about 40-50% of the US’s GDP.
Also metro areas make up the vast majority of America’s GDP, and those are almost always blue.
Other than that, donating money helps.
Aside from that, I’m not sure. Massive labor strikes aren’t going to happen, those are hard to organize and are illegal under Taft-Hartley. Non-violent protests are useless and ineffective. They’re better than not doing them, but they accomplish pretty much nothing.
They’re being inconvenienced. Quite a lot of them, by now, are being inconvenienced by one thing or another that the Trump administration has been doing.
The trick is to get them to put the blame on the administration; not on those protesting it.
Sounds great. But IIRC, a federal grand jury requires only a mere majority of jurors to vote in favor of the prosecution to give an indictment. It might be hard for a Trump opponent to block an indictment since he’d have to get a good number of jurors on board.
Like thorny locust said, such methods would stir up anger indeed, but they’d stir up anger at precisely the wrong side - getting the general public to become angry at Team Blue rather than Team Red.
